Insects Are Dying En Masse

[Quaestio]

It was once favored that the earth was flat. We have learned better since.

There was never a "scientific" consensus that the earth was flat. The ancient Greeks had figured it out that the earth was 'spherical' based on evidence.
Eratosthenes even figured out the circumference of the earth more than 2000 years ago and he was reasonably accurate. However, the ancient Hebrew authors of the Old Testament believed the earth was flat and was the centre of the Universe- that was based in ignorance and religious beliefs, not evidence.

A modern-day scientific consensus comes about because of evidence, especially a strong consilience of evidence from many different lines of investigation across many different fields of science.

 

[Jack Hays]

Great, so the dozens of studies showing your pet galactic rays hypothesis is wrong, should be more than enough for you.

Too bad for you there aren't any.

 

[Quaestio]

Too bad for you there aren't any.

Try opening your eyes and go look at all the studies I and others posted on your pet hypothesis thread. It's okay, I know you won't. I guess you have to squeeze your eyes shut and pretend they don't exist for you to maintain your zealous beliefs. A true 'skeptic' would go looking for those studies in the literature themselves, but that's not you.

 

[Jack Hays]

Try opening your eyes and go look at all the studies I and others posted on your pet hypothesis thread. It's okay, I know you won't. I guess you have to squeeze your eyes shut and pretend they don't exist for you to maintain your zealous beliefs. A true 'skeptic' would go looking for those studies in the literature themselves, but that's not you.

I have looked at each and every one. And each and every one has been refuted.

 

[Quaestio]

I have looked at each and every one. And each and every one has been refuted.

Nope and Nope. But keep on pretending if that's what you need to give yourself a sense of "purpose" in life.

 

[Jack Hays]

Nope and Nope.

Your denial is not an argument.

 

[Quaestio]

Your denial is not an argument.

Your denial is not an argument.

The studies I posted were.

 

[lwf]

But for one to be denied....

For one to disagree when the rest agree is an anomaly.

 

[lwf]

I have looked at each and every one. And each and every one has been refuted.

You have that backwards. Those studies are the ones that refute yours because those studies have consensus. Yours is an assertion disregarded by 99% of the scientific community.

 

[Tim the plumber]

You have that backwards. Those studies are the ones that refute yours because those studies have consensus. Yours is an assertion disregarded by 99% of the scientific community.

Rather than just firing back and fourth at each other why not look at the numbers?

 

[Jack Hays]

Your denial is not an argument.

The studies I posted were.

As were the refutations I posted.

 

[Jack Hays]

You have that backwards. Those studies are the ones that refute yours because those studies have consensus. Yours is an assertion disregarded by 99% of the scientific community.

We shall see.

 

[lwf]

Rather than just firing back and fourth at each other why not look at the numbers?

I used to be somewhat interested in researching conspiracy theories and fringe science. I found them fascinating, but eventually I noticed that I always ended up in the exact same place. Every single time I dove in to try to discover the truth, I always found that someone somewhere in the body of evidence and research made an assertion or an assumption that they shouldn't have made. They pivoted off of a single error and created an amazingly elaborate tale that seemed perfectly rational if you assume one erroneous fact and build from there. Every single time this happened. Eventually I realized that I was wasting an inordinate amount of my time that I could have been spending doing something else. It's amazing how far I can go down a rabbit hole looking for buried treasure without realizing that if I'd just taken a step back and looked at the consensus of what we as a society know about rabbits, I would have realized: it's just a rabbit hole.

I'm sure your data leads precisely to your conclusion that there must be treasure at the end of your search. But I do not trust that data because the consensus of peer reviewed scientific journals come to a different conclusion than you do, and you are just some guy on the internet. No offense.

 

[Jack Hays]

I used to be somewhat interested in researching conspiracy theories and fringe science. I found them fascinating, but eventually I noticed that I always ended up in the exact same place. Every single time I dove in to try to discover the truth, I always found that someone somewhere in the body of evidence and research made an assertion or an assumption that they shouldn't have made. They pivoted off of a single error and created an amazingly elaborate tale that seemed perfectly rational if you assume one erroneous fact and build from there. Every single time this happened. Eventually I realized that I was wasting an inordinate amount of my time that I could have been spending doing something else. It's amazing how far I can go down a rabbit hole looking for buried treasure without realizing that if I'd just taken a step back and looked at the consensus of what we as a society know about rabbits, I would have realized: it's just a rabbit hole.

I'm sure your data leads precisely to your conclusion that there must be treasure at the end of your search. But I do not trust that data because the consensus of peer reviewed scientific journals come to a different conclusion than you do, and you are just some guy on the internet. No offense.

My search led to Oxford University.

[h=3]Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges | Astronomy & Geophysics ...[/h]
[url]https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article-abstract/48/1/1.18/220765
[/URL]
by H Svensmark - ‎2007 - ‎Cited by 312 - ‎Related articles
Feb 1, 2007 - Cloud tops have a high albedo and exert their cooling effect by scattering back into the cosmos much of the sunlight that could otherwise warm ...

 

[Tim the plumber]

I used to be somewhat interested in researching conspiracy theories and fringe science. I found them fascinating, but eventually I noticed that I always ended up in the exact same place. Every single time I dove in to try to discover the truth, I always found that someone somewhere in the body of evidence and research made an assertion or an assumption that they shouldn't have made. They pivoted off of a single error and created an amazingly elaborate tale that seemed perfectly rational if you assume one erroneous fact and build from there. Every single time this happened. Eventually I realized that I was wasting an inordinate amount of my time that I could have been spending doing something else. It's amazing how far I can go down a rabbit hole looking for buried treasure without realizing that if I'd just taken a step back and looked at the consensus of what we as a society know about rabbits, I would have realized: it's just a rabbit hole.

I'm sure your data leads precisely to your conclusion that there must be treasure at the end of your search. But I do not trust that data because the consensus of peer reviewed scientific journals come to a different conclusion than you do, and you are just some guy on the internet. No offense.

The thing does not take long.

Average precipitation on Greenland, about 320mm to 450mm depending on the source of the data, multiplied by the area of Greenland. Compared to the flow rate of the Mississippi and see how many Mississippi sized rivers you would need to flow out of the place for its' breif summer; About 14.

Then look for those rivers on google maps.

 

[Threegoofs]

The thing does not take long.

Average precipitation on Greenland, about 320mm to 450mm depending on the source of the data, multiplied by the area of Greenland. Compared to the flow rate of the Mississippi and see how many Mississippi sized rivers you would need to flow out of the place for its' breif summer; About 14.

Then look for those rivers on google maps.

There you go ladies and gentlemen.... SCIENCE!


I wonder why NASA didnt check google maps before deploying a billion dollar satellite to monitor this?

Must be part of the giant worldwide conspiracy.

:lamo

 

[Tim the plumber]

There you go ladies and gentlemen.... SCIENCE!


I wonder why NASA didnt check google maps before deploying a billion dollar satellite to monitor this?

Must be part of the giant worldwide conspiracy.

:lamo

Well the best way to measure the ice would be to use the old, 1960's, thing of a plane flying over with 2 radars one which sees through the ice the other bounces off the top. That's how we know what is under all that ice and how thick it is etc. Then we would have extremely accurate maps of it all, be able to say where it is melting or where it is gaining ice etc.

However, that would not need a billion dollar budget and thus not need a half million dollar salary for the project manager. Far beter to use gravity on a passing satelite.

 

[Quaestio]

Your ‘refutations’ only exist in your imagination.

 

[Into the Night]

My God. Neither does food when cooked in a microwave oven, but somehow the EM field affects the food...

False equivalence. An insect isn't water either, though it contains water. The length of its body does not determine which radio frequencies will be absorbed.

You are most certainly in the first peak of the D-K curve.

Psychoquackery.

 

[Into the Night]

Which data? The data that the consensus of the scientific community has determined is valid, or the data that one alternative kook prefers to use?

Data is not science. Consensus is not used in science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[Into the Night]

One is an anomaly. Two is a coincidence. Three is a trend. Get some consensus if you want your data to be taken seriously.

Data isn't consensus. Consensus is not a proof. Only religion and politics depend on consensus.

 

[Into the Night]

I understand there were location and data availability problems with the P.R. rainforest data used in at least one of the recent studies cited.
Regardless, I suspect a decline in # of bumble bees is likely due in large to pesticides. Lumping climate change with other causes is ludicrous as is misidentifying honey bees as bumble bees in the video.

I see no notable decline in bumblebees anywhere I travel. I suspect this report is bogus and using made up numbers. The raw data is not available. Just summaries of 'raw data'. that as far as I'm concerned is just made up numbers.

 

[Into the Night]

It was once favored that the earth was flat. We have learned better since.

Hasn't been for a very long time, dude. Even the ancient Greeks knew the Earth was spherical.

 

[Into the Night]

Great, so the dozens of studies showing your pet galactic rays hypothesis is wrong, should be more than enough for you.

A study isn't a proof.

 

[Into the Night]

Try opening your eyes and go look at all the studies I and others posted on your pet hypothesis thread. It's okay, I know you won't. I guess you have to squeeze your eyes shut and pretend they don't exist for you to maintain your zealous beliefs. A true 'skeptic' would go looking for those studies in the literature themselves, but that's not you.

Studies are not a proof.