Hmm, personal attacks? Like you claiming I "bullied" my legislators with my presentation, when you were not there to see it?
I dont start things Kabob, but I also dont forgive and forget. Your dementia means all you do is forget.

quote:

I also dont forgive and forget.

The mark of a bully.

I try to forgive, but not forget. The problem with you is that you won't let me forgive because you refresh your personal attacks regularly.

And it wasn't your legislator that I accused you of bulling. It was some poor civil servant. And I reached that opinion from stuff you said.

After all, bullying is your nature. You have your methods, I'm sure. The only method you have here is to make up shit, cause me to defend.

Impotent - that's the word. For a bully, that must feel aweful.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

This is exactly the argument you started with. You are still trying to drag me back in and re litigate.

No, actually I too am trying to wrap this up.

You have accused me of stalking. I'm sure from your perspective you feel that way.

But think about it this way; do you realize how difficult it is to corner a climate science denier? Not just any denier, but one who denies he's a denier. An analogy might be like chasing a squirrel in a gymnasium. It's a rare opportunity, and it's a pleasure to find and know you, sir.

I still dont beleive you ME. I dont beleive you feel its a pleasure. And there is good reason. On one hand you tell others Im not a lier in an attempt to recreate your image. Then a few posts later you have forgotten that and here you are calling me a lier again in an attempt to goad me back onto the field.
Im not playing your game. its that simple.

quote:

Im not playing your game. its that simple.

Yes, indeed, it is that simple.

In part your game was that I just wouldn't admit when I was wrong, that I was dismissive, obtuse, stupid and more.

I didn't get the chance here on this thread to admit I was wrong, because I wasn't, but I have been wronged. If and when I'm wrong on a specific issue, such as the CO2 relationship with warming, I'll certainly be man enough to own it.

Since that was your game and accusations the only way I could settle it, satisfactorily to me anyway, was to prove you wrong.

Now that I've done that, it's you all along who won't admit it, and you keep making excuses. Accusing others of something you are guilty of is projection, especially in advance.

Now, after the fact, you won't admit it. Perhaps you are a liar. Now that I think about it again, you claimed several times the source was from the Royal Society, when it clearly was not. I asked you to prove it and you didn't or couldn't. So, I proved it for you.

I could still be wrong. It's up to you to show or prove it. You have failed on that part, so far. Merely claiming otherwise doesn't work.

BTW, my "game" is tell the truth and dwell in reality as best known or discovered, have some preferably good facts and evidence as backup, which is the foundation for deciphering what is truth and reality. Be adaptable, not rigid in opinion or belief especially when it dwells solely in your head.

After all, facts and evidence are the prime way or path to quell the tricky mind games we all struggle with, some more or less adept.

You don't play the "game" well. You game the game. That's the denier trap in a nutshell.

Me, its all there. go look. put aside this little vendetta and go look. we can just go round in circles all day. you are ignoring some key points.
Im just not interested in laying it all out for you again and you will just ignore it and I do not feel your purpose for this badgering is in anyway sincere. If you are happy with your position and feel you have stated it well, then thats fine by me.

"Happy" is not the right word. I am satisfied with my position/view simply because I think it is correct. That's despite your not agreeing. I would be a lot closer to "happy" if you agreed. I don't like arguing this hard. It's demeaning bilaterally.

I don't want you to lay it all out again. I got it.

The key points to me are early on you posted a link from a predatory science journal stating research conclusion that are contrarian science and you defended it. It went downhill from there, and you still think that's okay.

All your other points are rendered moot as to credibility due to the one hinge flaw. If you really acknowledged the flaw, then your other points would change accordingly, and probably drastically. It's all tied together as far as I could read and understand you.

We cannot have a real discussion on climate or the premise of the OP, when your basis is tied to a prime factor that isn't true. Everything downhill from that is presumed tainted.

No thats all fine with me. Though it does astound me that after all that, you cling to the idea that i was discussing climate change. But if thats where you want to hang your hat, then so be it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Kundzewicz

https://www.egu.eu/awards-meda...etris-koutsoyiannis/

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/c.onof

As I said. It was all there.

quote:

Though it does astound me that after all that, you cling to the idea that i was discussing climate change.

Any claim that the effect of CO2 on warming is unidirectional is most definitely about climate change.

And most definitely it is for the purpose of negating any prior science and studies and conclusions regarding the anthropogenic cause and effect relationship. It denies the physics and the facts.

And most definitely it is contrarian science, and ties into the denialist's narratives.

As Oxford described it - "it's a global threat to science". I might add - it's a global threat to solutions.

There can be no viable solution deriving from denial of reality.

I am trying here, to have you come to a more rational conclusion by getting you too look and not necessary comment or have to back down.

Have a look at the profiles I linked too. they are the authors. A nobel laureate for his work on the IPCC, a faculty member of the royal society, An award winner in the european union.

You already forgot kabob.
A legislative panel put the original meeting on that I went to. Everyone there was there of their own free will. You are obtuse.
Not everyone is the coward you are, they can speak up, for or against anything that comes up in a public meeting.

I went back and reread my posts, from that thread. The two cornell grads were there to promote themselves, looking for jobs. The state engineer, the only dirt man of the bunch, was excited and on board.
So, you are a liar.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I am trying here, to have you come to a more rational conclusion by getting you too look and not necessary comment or have to back down.

Have a look at the profiles I linked too. they are the authors. A nobel laureate for his work on the IPCC, a faculty member of the royal society, An award winner in the european union.

I accepted your invitation and looked back. Those are real scientists, presumably qualified to study and write such as presented in your initial link. Hydrologists - close enough:

https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155...sHmgGW1yNbF_WNuKXgas

Also, here's something else I stumbled onto, researching:

https://judithcurry.com/2023/0...usality-and-climate/

Guest post by Antonis Christofides, Demetris Koutsoyiannis, Christian Onof and Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz

Investigating potential causes
"So here is the question: given two processes, how can we determine if one is a potential cause of the other? We deal with this question in two papers we published last year in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A (PRSA) : Revisiting causality using stochastics: 1. Theory (preprint); 2. Applications (preprint). We reviewed existing theories of causation, notably probabilistic theories, and found that all of them have considerable limitations."

There is a lot to read in that article alone, but they say in conclusion: "The results are clear: changes in CO₂ concentration cannot be a cause of temperature changes. On the contrary, temperature change is a potential cause of CO₂ change on all time scales."

Another excerpt:

"One might think that the potential causality direction we determined is counterintuitive in the light of the well-known greenhouse effect, and that the effect of temperature on CO₂ concentration would be subtle. But no, it is quite pronounced. In fact, human emissions are only 4% of the total, natural emissions dominate, and the increase of the latter because of temperature rise is more than three times the human emissions. This it is visible in a graph we included in an Appendix to the paper."

And another:

"Of course, several questions remain . Why does the temperature increase? And why does the temperature rise potentially cause an increase in CO₂ concentration? Is the temperature change a real cause of the CO₂ concentration change, or could they both be the result of some further causal factor ? It’s not hard to speculate. Yet we briefly investigate quantitatively possible mechanisms for these causal relationship in the appendices to the paper. However, if we stick to the facts, two things are clear: (i) changes in CO₂ concentration have not been warming the planet; (ii) climate models do not reflect what the observational data tell us on this issue. "

Footnote (my own):

The parts highlighted in bold alert me and signal that these guys aren't as certain as they say elsewhere. And, as far as I know what he's saying defies the physics of it all.

Another excerpt:

JC comment: "I find this analysis to be very interesting. The global carbon cycle is definitely “unsettled science.” I think what this paper shows is that CO2 is an internal feedback in the climate system, not a forcing (I think that Granger causality would reveal this?). Yes, this all depends on how we define the system, and humans and their emissions are currently acting outside of the system in most climate models and are considered as an external forcing. Again, as emphasized in the paper, human emissions are small fraction of natural emissions so this issue of internal versus external isn’t straightforward."

The claim that human caused emissions are a small fraction is an essential presumption in reaching the conclusion that CO2 is an effect rather than a cause of warming - unidirectional. And note that "emissions" are more than just CO2.

There are numerous articles on that topic, human vs natural emissions. I chose one: https://skepticalscience.com/h...atural-emissions.htm

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
What the science says...

The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.

The myth:

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.”

=================================================

The claim from the unidirectional authors: "In fact, human emissions are only 4% of the total, natural emissions dominate, and the increase of the latter because of temperature rise is more than three times the human emissions."

I don't think that is a fact(s). (three facts actually claimed in one sentence) I was able to confirm the 4% claim as a myth. Since it's included in the same sentence as three associated claims, I can safely presume that all three are myths. The "natural emissions dominate" claim I've addressed elsewhere. I was not able to confirm the "three times" claim from other sources. But this source quantifies it indirectly:

https://www.noaa.gov/news-rele...ease-rapidly-in-2022

Excerpt:

Carbon dioxide emissions remain the biggest problem

CO2 is by far the most important contributor to climate change. The main driver of increasing atmospheric CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels, with emissions increasing from 10.9 billion tons per year in the 1960s — which is when the measurements at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii began — to about 36.6 billion tons per year in 2022, according to the Global Carbon Projectoffsite link, which uses NOAA’s greenhouse gas measurements in its estimates.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today is comparable to where it was around 4.3 million years ago during the mid-Pliocene epoch, when sea level was about 75 feet higher than today, the average temperature was 7 degrees Fahrenheit higher than in pre-industrial times and studies indicate offsite linklarge forests occupied areas of the Arctic that are now tundra.

About a quarter of the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels to date have been absorbed by the world ocean, contributing to ocean acidification, which may threaten some fisheries and aquaculture around the world.

=========================================================

So, the way I read that is if CO2 today is about the same as 4.3 million years ago in the mid-Pliocene epoch, yet the average temperature then was 7 degrees F. higher than today, as well as sea levels, that means temperatures lag CO2 and sea level rise.

========================================================

There are other areas in the study and paper which may cause much doubt as to the conclusion, such as their methodology. That will take some time to study and even then will probably be too confusing to a non-scientist.

One large clue is the use of this term: "Revisiting causality using stochastics " Now, if you or anyone can understand this, my respects.

From Oxford:

https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/u...work=Journal+article

Also:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/v...JCLI-D-21-0343.1.xml

https://royalsocietypublishing....1098/rsta.2008.0059

=======================================================

But the BIG question is why does this have traction and where?

======================================================

https://factsonclimate.org/inf...warming-relationship

https://www.epa.gov/climatecha...auses-climate-change


I'm still researching and as I discover more, I'll post it. This is enough for now.

right, and now too address the issue of MDPI. until recently it was a rising star in scientific publishing. with some questions yes, but very popular because it offered open access to scientific papers. { you will notice that one of the abstracts I posted earlier was not open and to read the rest of the paper a fee of 1200 dollars was required.}

MDPI has some 50 journals. The paper we are discussing was published in March 2023, so presumably submitted earlier. In the same month as the paper was published, One of MDPI's journals was delisted by the web of science.
Id surmise that MDPI was until that point, an accepted publishing option if this article on the issue is anything to go by.
https://scholarlykitchen.sspne...ers-the-1b-question/

Sometimes timing is everything.

The article I posted from Oxford raised enough doubt for me. But as I recall the Oxford article preceded the MDPI article you posted a few years.

So, I don't know what changed in the meantime, if anything significant.

But what I do know is that the notion of unidirectional cause and effect relationship in climate change/warming is something both old and new. It's been claimed before but won't go away.

The question really: is it predatory climate science?

I can judge only from the contrarian conclusions, and look for flaws in the process, the questions asked and answered, the premises, the facts claimed, and of course appeal to authority.

BTW, I've added and edited some research to my above post.

so its getting complicated now. But rather than prescribe predatory intent on the authors, read with an open mind where they conclude that approaching this info more as an avenue for more research, and add in that their main goal was not climate science, but better understanding of Stochastic causal systems.

And so my point is, its not the correct avenue of first line of attack, to go after the scientists or the media they publish in. to defend common understanding of climate change.
When there is plenty of possibility to doubt these guys had any ill intent given their credentials.
If the science they produce stacks up, cool. But even they recognise due to the nature of the complexity of whats not known. That it might not.

quote:

so its getting complicated now.

But rather than prescribe predatory intent on the authors, read with an open mind where they conclude that approaching this info more as an avenue for more research, and add in that their main goal was not climate science, but better understanding of Stochastic causal systems.

More complicated? Maybe to you.

I read their conclusions, but didn't see where "they conclude that approaching this info more as an avenue for more research, and add in that their main goal was not climate science, but better understanding of Stochastic causal systems".

Maybe I missed that, and you could provide a specific quote to supplement your claim and paraphrasing.

I read where they said that the cause-and-effect relationship of CO2 and warming was Warming caused CO2, one direction, and their study proves the opposite direction isn't possible. And they said their study utilized Stochastic methodology for the study which included climate science data, and reached conclusions specifically on climate change/warming, and also said nothing in their conclusions about what was learned or intended to learn on "Stochastic causal systems".

Other studies have been on the computer models designed around Stochastic programing, which I take to mean "systems" of analysis, also which can be applied to many questions of science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_programming

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz#ip=1

https://www.google.com/search?...oAgo&sclient=gws-wiz


But the question where the method was applied in your link was limited to climate and CO2.

Complicated was a conciliatory gesture on my part to avoid inflaming you. As I have all ready said its all there.

So this happens every time. I tell you what my point is, and you ignore it.

What can I say but that despite my earlier recognition that explaining my simple point to you further was pointless, I gave it one last shot.

Time will tell wether this research they have done is worth something, or they have hurt thier reputations.

For myself, given thier standing, I will pay attention and show interest.

I talked to the engineer at the meeting today, For the lake and pond temps and algae growth.
He confirmed he was the only civil servant there.
A few legislators, who have lakeside homes. Other home owners with waterfront property. The two college boys, who signed up to speak first, and myself.
The boys offered nothing to work on,on a state level.
My pictures and numbers, he has been working on that kind of info state wide.
And the property owners.
He said one owner asked about dye in the waters to block sunlight, and kill algae. ( it was after I left) It was deemed unreliable. Another wanted trees planted back along shorelines for shade and cooling. A good idea, but not enforceable to private land.
So Kabob, you need to show me who these civil servants are I bullied, or admit you made shit up. A liar.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

So this happens every time. I tell you what my point is, and you ignore it.

And I think I'm not ignoring your point(s).

I think I'm taking it/them into account and addressing your claims.

An example: (partial quote)

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

But rather than prescribe predatory intent on the authors, read with an open mind where they conclude that approaching this info more as an avenue for more research, and add in that their main goal was not climate science, but better understanding of Stochastic causal systems.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I read their conclusions, but didn't see where "they conclude that approaching this info more as an avenue for more research, and add in that their main goal was not climate science, but better understanding of Stochastic causal systems".

Maybe I missed that, and you could provide a specific quote to supplement your claim and paraphrasing.

I politely asked that you provide evidence of your claim. There's no need to get all huffy.

Added to ignore list: theback40

"For ignored users, replies in topics are hidden by default. In addition, you will not receive notifications of new content by ignored users and ignored users will not be able to start a Private Message with you."

Rightly or wrongly ME, I see it as disingenuous.

Ive kept saying its all there. and it is.
You see my response as huffy. I cant help that.
Like with my having to post the authors credentials, you could have read that yourself. Or did and choose to ignore it. Yet i have to post them and then come back and explain them.

It was your responsibility all along. You made the claim and the burden is on you to prove it.

I have held up my portion of responsibility by providing substantiation if not proof of my claims, and rebuttals.

I did some research for you. When you posted the credentials, I acknowledged them/it, and agreed with your point there.

Also, previously you were relying on the credibility of the publisher, and even the Royal Society. I agreed the credibility of the Royal Society is impeccable, but I'm not sure what extent they passed approval on the authors/study/article, or actually published. The article I posted by Oxford shed lots of doubt on the credibility of the publisher of the study, MDPI.

I suspect that all the science publishing by MDPI is from well credentialed scientists. That says a lot but perhaps not enough. Yet, Oxford found the need to do an extensive study on them and report, under the premise of Predatory Science.

Again, the meat and potatoes of the study and conclusions you posted and defended is where it's at.

Ok, the last sentence is where we can end it. Yep I do defend it. But not in the way you are implying. I have supplied the proof of my claim and stated it outright.
We can agree that you dont understand that point and I can not explain any better for you

quote:

We can agree that you dont understand that point

I understand this:

Either you agree or disagree with the authors of the report which concluded that increased CO2 is unidirectionally an effect of warming. Thus, per the report, all the body of prior climate science stating that warming is an effect of the increase in CO2 is negated, as well as human induced increase of CO2 from burning fossil fuels is thus moot. The report negates and moots this for example: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissio...and%20transportation.

By defending the report, and by not disagreeing with it specifically on its prime conclusions, by default you agree with it.

Yes, it's a binary choice. It's that simple, yet you try to make it complicated.

And I understand this. You are wilfully stupid.
At least I hope its wilful.

Think of it like this:

In your imagination there's a large tunnel which is called reality, aka world, aka universe. It is well lit up with hundreds of lights, a few going into the distance, flickering.

There are two switches. One is on and the other is off. They are wired so they both can't be on at the same time. Kinda like two power sources - the main power and the auxiliary power wired so there is no backfeed between them.

The one that is on was wired by many professional electricians and it took years to accomplish. The other switch was wired recently by other professional electricians.

So, you flip the switches. The new wiring illuminates far fewer lights, and one or two faint lights off in the distance, still flickering, and there is a lot of darkness around the edges and corners. Moans and growls thrive in the unilluminated zones.

That's what your climate science study and report does or attempts. It flips the power switch - no backfeed, lots of dark edges and corners, especially in the distance.

Many people dwelling in the tunnel called reality like the new setup. Others do not.

Si-Fi tunnel vision, or analogy/parable of reality?

Shanks,
Kabob needs to add to his tag line....
"Not responsible for any lies told while pushing my version of a narrative"

Shanks, this post is conciliatory.

I think I have figured out what "our" problem is. We are coming at this from two polarized perspectives, which are influenced both psychologically and evidentiary value.

Yes, I now agree that this has become more complicated.

Let's see if I can unravel it.

First, I'll say that I think I've understood your point(s) all along. Understanding and acceptance is two things.

So, to assess the "our" aspect of breakdown I looked introspective. Here's an explanation of what I came up with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

"A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives, presenting the viewer with only two absolute choices when in fact, there could be many."

So, I'm probably guilty of false dilemma, to be fair.

It's a psychological condition that's hard to break through. I probably need the ten step program. The first step is admitting it.

Next, here are some articles regarding science, analytical methods and history, and a publication by the Royal Society, which shows the progression of science empirically and especially models (vs predatory science).

https://royalsocietypublishing....1098/rsta.2014.0421

Carbon cycle feedbacks and future climate change
Pierre Friedlingstein
Published:13 November 2015

I read the whole thing. IMO, the closing statement is easier to read than the abstract:

6. Concluding remarks
The anthropogenic perturbation, through the increase of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, is very likely to be responsible for the observed climate change. Further CO2 emissions will inevitably lead to additional warming over the twenty-first century. The anthropogenic perturbation has a profound impact on the natural global carbon cycle with all reservoirs, the atmosphere, the land ecosystems and the global ocean, being pushed away from their pre-industrial quasi-steady state. Increase in atmospheric CO2 leads to land and ocean uptake of CO2, a strong negative feedback on the anthropogenic perturbation. Only about half of CO2 emissions currently remain in the atmosphere. Without the service provided by the land and ocean systems, atmospheric CO2 would already be above 500 ppm today. However, climate change also has an impact on the land and ocean carbon cycle, which operates in the opposite direction, warming leads to carbon release from both land and ocean, a positive feedback on the anthropogenic perturbation. The quantification of these four terms, the ocean and land carbon cycle sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 (βo, βl), and the ocean and land carbon cycle sensitivity to climate change (γo, γl) has been impeding progress in Earth System science for the last decade. Recent use of observations gives some hope on constraining the most uncertain term, γl.

For the historical period, the land and ocean sinks are primarily due to the response to atmospheric CO2 increase, with the historical warming inducing a non-negligible release of carbon from the land.

=================================================================

Here's another recent article on the earth systems feedback loop:

https://www.space.com/methane-...limate-feedback-loop

Sea of methane sealed beneath Arctic permafrost could trigger climate feedback loop if it escapes
News
By Sascha Pare( livescience.com ) published 4 days ago

A sea of migrating methane discovered below the permafrost in Svalbard may eventually escape its icy prison if the permafrost continues to thaw due to climate change.

And at 430 in the morning, I just thought of another way to put across my position that might be helpful.

My position is I can respect and take the idea these guy propose on board. without supporting it.
Just as I can for the science that you posted. And you will notice that not once did I make a claim against the articles you presented.

This is largely because of this theory.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse...20and%20learn%20more.

quote:

My position is I can respect and take the idea these guy propose on board. without supporting it.

Me too.

It's just that my "without supporting it" is different than yours. My "respect" is different too. I respect disinformation for what it is, in fact, like I respect venomous snakes.

Your link to what we don't know is a good one.

Apparently, it's a tricky balance - "The Circle Of Knowledge And What You Don’t Know Exists". The circle of knowledge becomes lopsided when we internalize what we know to exist with something that we know isn't true. You know what happens when a lopsided out-of-balance circle spins. Just look at your washing machine on spin cycle when it's out of balance. It wobbles then shuts down.

There's more:

I think of these business models of open access publishing of science journals as akin to self-publishing book businesses. That in itself is not a bad thing, but it could be without constraints aside from money, such as ethics and due-diligence.

I didn't know about that before researching rebuttals for you. But now it makes sense.

https://osc.cam.ac.uk/about-sc...predatory-publishers

Open Research Predatory publishers

https://predatory-publishing.c...predatory%20behavior.

Is MDPI a predatory publisher?

Written by Anonymous Author in Open Access Last Updated May 17, 2023

an analysis of MDPI has been published, which does conclude that it exhibits predatory behavior.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse...ry-christos-kontovas

"All MDPI journals listed as predatory journals" [1]- this is all over my Twitter and LinkedIn feeds.

https://retractionwatch.com/20...racted-and-replaced/

A 2021 article that found journals from the open-access publisher MDPI had characteristics of predatory journals has been retracted and replaced with a version that softens its conclusions about the company. MDPI is still not satisfied, however.

==================================================================

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI

MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute) is a publisher of open access scientific journals. Founded by Shu-Kun Lin as a chemical sample archive, it now publishes over 390 peer-reviewed, open access journals.[2][3] MDPI is among the largest publishers in the world in terms of journal article output,[4][5] and is the largest publisher of open access articles.[6]

MDPI journals are included in the Directory of Open Access Journals.[16] MDPI is a member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association,[17] a participating publisher and supporter of the Initiative for Open Citations,[18] and a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).[19]

MDPI's business model is based on establishing entirely open access broad-discipline journals, with fast processing times from submission to publication and article processing charges paid by the author.[6] MDPI's business practices have attracted controversy, with critics suggesting it sacrifices editorial and academic rigor in favor of operational speed and business interests.[4][7][20][21][22] MDPI was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies in 2014[23][24] but was removed in 2015 following a successful appeal[22][23] while applying pressure on Beall's employer.[25] Some journals published by MDPI have also been noted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Norwegian Scientific Publication Register, two major scientific bodies, for lack of rigour and possible predatory practice.[26][27][28]

=========================================================

Also, we know for sure that there was/is great effort and success and harm from many sources manufacturing doubt and uncertainty on climate science. They spewed disinformation.

https://www.google.com/search?...nt=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

==================================================================

So, there are significant clues and facts that a science journal, published by MDPI, claiming unidirectional cause and effect of warming and CO2 relationship should be considered unfavorably, if not predatory science.

The body of knowledge, circle, and what we don't know, is not advanced with disinformation. It's muddied, and just like a washing machine on spin cycle, mud shuts it all down. In the case of climate science, it's intentional.

We can probably never sort it out absolutely, but we can abide the clues.

Yep, and so given all that. Which I understand is your perspective.

Why would this man go down that path?

quote:

Kundzewicz’s research interests include hydrological extremes (especially floods), the climate and water (especially the impact of climate change on water resources), and the consequences of climate change on sectors and systems.[2][3][7] He has served as an expert in these fields, in various capacities. He served as the chairman of the PAS Committee on Threat Research, and also the PAS Committee on Water Threat Research.[3] Since 1994 he has been one of the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), including as a four-fold Co-ordinating Lead Author.[1][9]

He has published extensively as a scientist, with more than 550 scientific publications authored or co-authored by him.[9] From April 1997 to April 2015 he served as editor-in-chief of Hydrological Sciences Journal.[10]

Awards and distinctions[edit]
Kundzewicz has received various decorations and awards for his research work. He obtained an honorary doctorate from the Warsaw University of Life Sciences (SGGW)[11] in 2018 and also an honorary professorship from the Nanking University of Information Science and Technology (NUIST) in 2018. He has received the Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz International Prize for Water (2020),[12] the International Hydrological Prize (Dooge Medal) (2017),[7][13] the Grand Golden Seal Award of the City of Poznań (2008),[4] the Tison Award of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences (1987)[4] and the Award of the Secretary General of the Polish Academy of Sciences (1986).[4] He contributed to the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which in 2007 earned a collective Nobel Peace Prize.[1][9] In Poland, Prof. Kundzewicz has been decorated with a Knight’s Cross of the Polonia Restituta Order and a Golden Cross of Merit.[4]

Because when I first read the MDPI paper, it crossed my mind that the authors were no bodies looking to gain attention. Then once id checked that and found thier credentials, I looked to see if the report was faked. Which lead me too the Royal society and thier publication there. So as far as I can tell, not faked.

My interest lead me too a paper from the editor of the royal society which I agreed with, and probably paraphrased on here.

quote:

We should remember that in the history of science there are several examples of papers that had scorn poured on them when first published, but which turned out to be correct and to transform their fields.

Well, we can darn sure state that this has been an in-depth debate.

We have both stated our case well.

I have moved slightly towards your side. I'm not sure where you stand.

The credentials of the scientists seem very solid. I can't be sure of the publisher.

We are at somewhat of a stand-off, IMO.

The best thing to do is declare it so, shake hands on cyberspace, and await further evidence.

In my opinion, the unidirectional claim has already been answered. But that's not your view.

This goes to show that maybe Attenborough is correct. The standoff thwarts action. No-action or resistance is action in this case.

Maybe the title to the OP should be Attenborough makes a bold claim about the nature of humanity.

Well how about this as an ending. I dont think we should be doing nothing. I think we should be doing what ever we can to reduce our impact on any natural system, climate included.
Hence my comment in another current thread about what we here have done, and we will continue to make ourselves more sustainable as the next years progress. Including going off grid on the new house im building and either installing solar power, or mini hydro.

I don't like the word you used - "ending".

I think this is an ongoing conversation, a beginning.

And yes, very much, I agree with the rest of your above post.

I think it's more than very interesting and inspiring that you are building an off-grid new house.

I'm thinking about and planning the same thing. My first cousin who is very capable, is also thinking about the same thing, and offered to help, so we can learn together.

I have the property - land, that's well suited. I've been working on it, clearing, landscaping, etc. I've also been researching solar power setups. That's the best option for me, except perhaps wind. I read that Bill Gates has funded a startup business and it, his team, has discovered some great improvements, innovations, making wind tech more viable on a small scale, economically and efficient.

My plan will be a small cabin to start with but designed to be expandable. A hub.

One of my dreams is to develop a community of like-minded people and provide the place and space for them to dwell - off grid.

It will take me between 2 and 3 years, But ive started already. Just cut down the first of 20 large Douglas firs. I will do all the framing and the 8x 3 exposed beams out of that. Then some native Red beech for flooring and weatherboards. I have my own portable sawmill so will do everything Im legally allowed to do myself. Just need a Builder on site for the tricky bits and sign off etc.

I hope you give us regular updates, with pictures.

I have the timber, but I estimate that I don't have the skill, stamina, time, means to make my own lumber. Now that I think about it, there are a few small sawmills around here. There's a possibility.

And here it is best to use treated lumber anywhere close to the ground. Termites.

So, you have to deal with building permits and codes.

I do too, except there may be a way to bypass some of it, and perhaps some of the add-on property tax, with the off-grid thing. I haven't investigated that thoroughly yet. They use aerial photos here, then send the inspectors snooping. One way they tag new construction is with the on-grid electrical wires, etc. The requests for power are automatically sent to the tax admin.

Right now my property tax is low because I have a wildlife corridor/habitat exception, and no structure development.

Then there's the well. I don't know how that ties into the tax admin or building codes, or whether they are notified. I'm pretty sure I can run the pump on solar.

Then there's the septic system.

Then there's insurance. I don't know about that either, yet.

It's complicated.

sometimes it cheaper to say sorry than ask permission.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...b1ce9a14fcda8&ei=150

Dark Vessels

https://www.alaskasnewssource....g-processing-plants/

Trident Seafoods announces restructuring of Alaskan operations including selling processing plants
Published: Dec. 14, 2023 at 10:42 PM EST

https://www.seafoodsource.com/...announced-withdrawal

“Crisis … years in the making” – Alaska’s seafood sector reeling after Trident’s announced withdrawal
By
Cliff White
January 4, 2024

https://www.msn.com/en-us/vide...a966555c71353&ei=117

Alaska's snow crab season canceled for second year in a row

Alaska's snow crab season has been canceled for a second year in a row, threatening the future of many fisheries in the area. The snow crab population saw a massive drop beginning several years ago and still hasn't recovered. Jonathan Vigliotti has the story.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...6f8c14ef8d62c3&ei=74

The largest great ape to ever live went extinct because of climate change, says new study
Story by By CHRISTINA LARSON, AP Science Writer • 3h

scientists in China and Australia report on Wednesday, Jan. 10, 2024 in the journal Nature. (Yingqi Zhang/IVPP- CAS via AP)
© Provided by The Associated Press