Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 241 to 270 of 299

Thread: NBC's Chuck Todd: "We're Not Going To Give TV Time To Climate Deniers"

  1. #241



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #242
    https://twitter.com/Trudeaus_Ego/sta...60099745333283

    Quote Originally Posted by wizardwatson View Post
    ...sad that this man's greatness is defined by the hatred he attracts and this is why Americans love him.

  4. #243

  5. #244
    https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/sta...74220396412928

    Quote Originally Posted by wizardwatson View Post
    ...sad that this man's greatness is defined by the hatred he attracts and this is why Americans love him.

  6. #245
    https://twitter.com/JunkScience/stat...44450566778880


  7. #246
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).
    Muh ScienceTM in 2018:

    https://twitter.com/goddeketal/statu...19214707023872


    Muh JournalismTM Job Security:

    NBC's Chuck Todd: "We're Not Going To Give TV Time To Climate Deniers"
    https://twitter.com/legitknuckle/sta...22107845914624

  8. #247

  9. #248
    Muh ScienceTM in 2023:

    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    Never-ending hysteria...




  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #249

  12. #250
    https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/st...75516578099200


  13. #251
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."

  14. #252
    https://twitter.com/TonyClimate/stat...15658116636672


  15. #253

  16. #254
    https://twitter.com/goddeketal/statu...80783016218624


  17. #255

  18. #256



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #257
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."

  21. #258
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  22. #259

  23. #260
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    https://twitter.com/XVanFleet/status...49091192664454
    Joseph Bast, former president and CEO of The Heartland Institute on the "climate" agenda:

    "Back in 1993, we identified 'global warming' as the mother of all environmental scare tactics…..Groups on the left understood that if you can control energy, you can control human beings...If, in fact, the combustion of fossil fuels is having a dangerous impact on climate, you have a recipe for controlling all use of fossil fuels..that’s 80/90% of all the energy...if you can control that and shut it down, you can shut down the engines of the world."
    //

  24. #261
    Is there not objective evidence of a great flood that had most of the earth covered in water?

  25. #262
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Checkmate, climate deniers!

    Renowned ScienceTM expert Anthony Fauci has entered the chat:

    https://twitter.com/greg_price11/sta...68320369373364
    //

  26. #263
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    From the Department of the Quiet Part Out Loud:

    https://twitter.com/PatrickTBrown31/...16559853748351
    to: https://twitter.com/PatrickTBrown31/...16563938955298
    [thread archive: see hidden matter below]


    [additional matter hidden to save space]
     
    https://twitter.com/PatrickTBrown31/...16555844035045
    to: https://twitter.com/PatrickTBrown31/...18089281573092
    [thread archive: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...844035045.html
    {@PatrickTBrown31 | 05 September 2023}

    Last week, I described our paper on climate change and wildfires:
    I am very proud of this research overall. But I want to talk about how molding research presentations for high-profile journals can reduce its usefulness & actually mislead the public.

    For climate research, I think the crux of the issue is highlighted here in my thread:
    I mentioned that this research looked at the effect of warming in isolation but that warming is just one of many important influences on wildfires with others being changes in human ignition patterns and changes in vegetation/fuels.

    So why didn’t I include these obviously relevant factors in my research from the outset? Why did I focus exclusively on the impact of climate change?

    Well, I wanted the researche to get as widely disseminated as possible, and thus I wanted it to be published in a high-impact journal.

    Put simply, I've found that there is a formula for success for publishing climate change research in the most prestigious and widely-read scientific journals and unfortunately this formula also makes the research less useful.

    1) The first thing to know is that simply *showing* that climate change impacts something of value is usually sufficient, and it is not typically necessary to show that the impact is large compared to other relevant influences.

    In the paper, I focused on the influence of climate change on extreme wildfire behavior but did not quantify (i.e., I “held constant”) the influence of other obviously relevant factors like changes in human ignitions or the effect of poor forest management.

    I knew that considering these factors would make for a more realistic (and thus useful) analysis, but I also knew that it would muddy the waters of an otherwise clean story and thus make the research more difficult to publish.

    This type of framing, where the influence of climate change is unrealistically considered in isolation, is the norm for high-profile research papers.

    For example, in another recent influential Nature paper, they calculated that the two largest climate change impacts on society are deaths related to extreme heat and damage to agriculture.
    However, that paper does not mention that climate change is not the dominant driver for either one of these impacts: temperature-related deaths have been declining, and agricultural yields have been increasing for decades despite climate change.
    2) This brings me to the second component of the formula, which is to ignore or at least downplay near-term practical actions that can negate the impact of climate change.

    If deaths related to outdoor temperatures are decreasing and agricultural yields are increasing, then it stands to reason that we can overcome some major negative effects of climate change. It is then valuable to study this success so that we can facilitate more of it.

    However, there is a taboo against studying or even mentioning successes since they are thought to undermine the motivation for greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

    Identifying and focusing on problems rather than studying the effectiveness of solutions makes for more compelling abstracts that can be turned into headlines, but it is a major reason why high-profile research is not as useful to society as it could be.

    3) A third element of a high-profile climate change research paper is to focus on metrics that are not necessarily the most illuminating or relevant but serve more to generate impressive numbers.

    In the case of my paper, I followed the common convention of focusing on changes in the risk of extreme events rather than simpler and more intuitive metrics like changes in intensity.
    The sacrifice of clarity for the sake of more impressive numbers was probably necessary for it to get into Nature.

    Another related convention, which I also followed in my paper, is to report results corresponding to time periods that are not necessarily relevant to society but, again, get you the large numbers that justify the importance of your research.

    For example, it is standard practice to report climate change related societal impacts associated with how much warming has occurred since the industrial revolution but to ignore or “hold constant” societal changes over that time.

    This makes little sense from a practical standpoint since the influence of societal changes have been much larger than the influence of climate changes on people since the 1800s.

    Similarly, it is conventional to report projections associated with distant future warming scenarios now (or always) thought to be implausible (RCP8.5) while ignoring potential changes in technology and resilience.

    A much more useful analysis for informing actual decisions we face would focus on changes in climate from the recent past that living people have experienced to the foreseeable future - the next several decades - while accounting for changes in technology and resilience.

    In the case of our research, this would mean considering the impact of climate change in conjunction with proposed reforms to forest management practices over the next several decades. This is what we are doing in the current phase of the research.
    This more practical kind of analysis is discouraged because looking at changes in impacts over shorter time periods and in the context of other relevant factors reduces the calculated magnitude of the impact of climate change, and thus it appears to weaken the case for greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

    So why did I follow this formula for producing a high-profile scientific research paper if I don’t believe it creates the most useful knowledge for society? I did it because I began this research as a new assistant professor facing pressure to establish myself in a new field and to maximize my prospects of securing respect from my peers, future funding, tenure, and ultimately a successful career.

    When I had previously attempted to deviate from the formula I outlined here…
    …my papers were promptly rejected out of hand by the editors of high-profile journals without even going to peer review.

    To put it bluntly, I sacrificed value added for society in order to mold the presentation of the research to be compatible with the preferred narratives of the editors and reviewers of high-profile journals.

    I am bringing these issue to light because I hope that highlighting them will push for reforms that will better align the incentives of researchers with the production of the most useful knowledge for society.

    I write more about this today in a piece in The Free Press:
    I also have more thoughts on my personal blog:
    //

  27. #264
    Quote Originally Posted by GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged View Post
    Is there not objective evidence of a great flood that had most of the earth covered in water?
    Of course there is significant geological evidence. You just call it slush instead of a tropical ocean.
    https://www.space.com/earth-slush-ba...lion-years-ago

    650 million years ago, Earth was covered in ice during an "extreme" 15-million-year-long ice age. New research suggests that towards the end this period, Earth may not have been fully frozen, however. The findings suggest the planet was more "slushball Earth" than "Snowball Earth," with patches of open water existing in shallow mid-latitude seas. This slushball state could have actually helped life survive during this extreme glacial period on our planet.
    XNN
    "They sell us the president the same way they sell us our clothes and our cars. They sell us every thing from youth to religion the same time they sell us our wars. I want to know who the men in the shadows are. I want to hear somebody asking them why. They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are but theyre never the ones to fight or to die." - Jackson Browne Lives In The Balance



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #265

  30. #266
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    If "climate change" alarmists had a model that produced consistently correct predictions, they wouldn't need to go on about "consensus" or "meta-analysis" [...]. They could just point to their consistently correct predictive model and say, "Deny this, bitchez!" But they can't [do that] because they don't have [any such model] - all they [can] do is concoct excuses for why their models have [repeatedly failed to make] correct predictions while demanding that everyone consider the matter to be "settled" because they have a "consensus" (and the dodgy "meta-analyses" to "prove" it).
    ↓↓↓

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post

  31. #267

  32. #268
    https://twitter.com/MattWallace888/s...78083902210091


  33. #269
    Don't worry the pole shift will make everyone believe in something...

  34. #270

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 53
    Last Post: 11-05-2022, 10:31 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-08-2017, 03:35 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-30-2013, 06:07 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-19-2010, 09:41 PM
  5. Climate Deniers Are Like "Fritzl"
    By PatriotG in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-02-2008, 10:09 AM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •