"The Chocolate Hoax, Junk Science, and the Media" Topic

link

Fascinating exposure of lazy journalism's willingness to regurgitate flawed science as fact.

Or they drop "outlier" data points.

Yeah. The ones that do not fit the curve that they should.
Or the ones that do not fit the grant proposal you contracted for.

I just wish that we could get over the worship of scientists as some sort of holy priesthood that seeks only Truth. They are as human as other Hans. As honest or dishonest as any other profession.
I graduated with a BS degree and do not remember taking any oath.

Oh, yes.
"Studies".
A local radio host drives me nuts with her blind acceptance of "studies".

Best of all, he did not fake any data. He just did a deliberately faulty "study" and cherry picked the data to "support his grant proposal".

Oh no. Real scientists don't do that. No, not at all.
Hockey stick!

Well, if get your "science" news from pop journalism, then what do you expect? Which is why I go to the peer reviewed journals for my science. I know, its takes a little more work and you actually have to think to use them (so demanding, these science journals).

Yes, peer review improve the quality of the paper, unless it is published by one of the lions/lionesses of the field, and steers towards uniformity of message.

To find out how many of those publishers are keeping their promise of doing rigorous peer review, I submitted ridiculously flawed papers and counted how many rejected them. (Answer: fewer than half.)

Wanna bet this isn't the only place this occurs?

The main purveyors of scientific hoaxes are not scientists or researchers, but the tobacco companies, coal industry, big pharma, and health food supplements and vitamin industries, who have a long history of bad science and good marketing.

ALL meaningful studies require peer review, and extensive testing prior to acceptance. Tabloid journalists abet the process, and some are complicit in misleading the public, often receiving financial support from the propagandists.

None of this would work without a great amount of scientific ignorance on the part of the public and the politicization of science by those who can throw around the big bucks. The largest of Grants is a pittance to the monies available to industry and their propaganda machines.

Follow the Money. Follow who profits. Check the funding of all research studies and their source. Don't expect the guy who is selling the elixir to tell you the truth.

"Well, if get your "science" news from pop journalism, then what do you expect? Which is why I go to the peer reviewed journals for my science. I know, its takes a little more work and you actually have to think to use them (so demanding, these science journals)."

Been shown to just as faulty as the online journals.

Been shown to just as faulty as the online journals.

Not nearly as bad as the popular press and agenda driven puff pieces that feed a scientifically ignorant public.

Been shown to just as faulty as the online journals.

Which is the benefit of going directly to published research and reading it. It can be demonstrated that it applies in such-and-such circumstances and doesn't for these-and-those circumstances. You can have a well-defined understanding of the type and magnitude of effect that has been demonstrated.

You really can't argue with or gain insight into generalizations because they are vague and (scientifically) unsubstantiated.

The difference is this:

XYZ HELPS ABC!

A sample from a to b of c, characterized by parameters d, e, and f were observed under conditions g, h, and i to result in a statstically significant result of j, k, and l in the m, n, and o domains.

One of those "substantiates" tons of conclusions and recommendations for action. The other one characterizes an observed phenomenon that should be considered under the appropriate and well-defined conditions.

If you look at the second one, you can decide how relevant the conditions and domains are to any issue important to you. And if you recommend an action, people can understand how you applied your criteria and what the basis is.

The first clue that something was wrong would be the sample size. Just 5 men and 11 women. That will yield a 25% margin of error.

The second clue was that the sample groups were imbalanced. 5 men and 11 women.

They also were divided up into 3 groups. So the actual test subjects were 1/3 of the actual size of the group…presumably. That should have been enough for anyone paying attention to to call BS!

Climate change comes to mind as well. World is too cold, nothing happened and then it got warm. World is too hot, nothing happened and the change almost too small to notice. Hence, Climate change! Oh and the science behind it is bogus. Same as the chocolate diet.

There is no science "behind it". It is just science in action, with tests, sampling, hypotheses, published data and reports, and counter-testing and critique.

The results of this process is that man-caused increased carbon in the atmosphere is disrupting the climate in a progressively strengthening fashion. The evidence is compelling and, last I looked 97% of climate scientists concur on these findings.

Those that argue otherwise generally lack scientific training, have no meaningful contradictory data, few experimental results, no alternative explanation that can be successfully tested. They have only fossil fuel industry financed data, that is generally strong on marketing and weak on testable conclusions. In short, they are a a very few financed scientists that are employed by people who want a given result.
There are always disagreements among scientists on a number of points in every theory, which are sorted out by the scientific process. The deniers generally latch unto one of these discussions and blow it out of proportion and try to extrapolate this into a rejection of the whole mass of findings.
They use similar methods regarding creationism, and other such non-scientific nonsense.

Meanwhile, industry propaganda, follows the model of the tobacco industry and tries to muddy the waters, and dupe the ignorant public. Goal? Keep making their profits for a few years more until even the worst of fools can no longer deny that the scientific findings are correct and the climate is changing in a way that is harmful to us all, and is caused by man. Such methods are still buying time for the tobacco industry that has ravaged generations.

Studies show that people who complain about science still type on computers.

That incongruity is at the core of the difference between engineers and scientists, climate scientists and meteorologists, scientific journals and tabloid news.

Joker and Repiqueone are right. This is not an expose on the integrity of science. It is an report on publishing fraud.

First thing I did was Google "medical journals." I browsed 10 pages of hits. That's what…100 sites or so? No "International Archives of Medicine." In fact, I'm not even sure the IAoM qualifies as a real journal.

So I searched IAoM and found this:

link

And here we find:

"The journal's publishers Internet Medical Publishing are listed as potentially predatory publishers on "Beall's list" compiled by librarian Jeffrey Beall.[4]"

For more info on predatory publishers see:

link

Bohannon writes this about open access journals:

"The call wasn't a complete surprise. The year before, I had run a sting operation for Science on fee-charging open access journals, a fast-growing and lucrative new sector of the academic publishing business. To find out how many of those publishers are keeping their promise of doing rigorous peer review, I submitted ridiculously flawed papers and counted how many rejected them. (Answer: fewer than half.)"

The moral of the story is to remember your due diligence. Vet your sources, and go here for the truth:

YouTube link

…and some laughs to boot.

That was hilarious Bob…

You do have a point about there being a difference between scientists and engineers – engineers have to be right or people die.

Similarly meteorologists who are consistently wrong get fired (and people could die). Climate scientists merely deny there is a 'pause,' then spend years finding 50 or so reasons for the 'pause,' or find 'missing' energy that means there is no 'pause.' And maintain their jobs and funding while doing so.

Insofar as 'scientific journals' vs tabloid news, both cater to their audiences.

Insofar as 'scientific journals' vs tabloid news, both cater to their audiences.

Sure, the one in scare quotes is constrained by facts.

Climate scientists merely deny there is a 'pause,'

Because if you're using stats properly there isn't one. Here's something from every second year statistics course: using regression backwards until you find a significant trend is statistically worthless. First of all, there will always be a pause of at least a few years since the length of the pause is highly dependent on the level of significance chosen, doesn't correct for serial auto-correlation, violates testing causality etc…

IF you use a test that's designed for find changes in trends such as change-point analysis (Available in R, Matlab, SAS and SPSS) rather than simple regression, you'll see that there hasn't been a significant change in the trend for the past 40 years.

Furthermore, goragrad, your favorite academic psychologist Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky and his co-authors have just released a paper about how denier memes are unduly influencing scientific debate by watering down findings in order to have less drama from vested interest and their pet ignorati.
And by the way, the article is open access:
link

Vested interests and political agents have long opposed political or regulatory action in response to climate change by appealing to scientific uncertainty. Here we examine the effect of such contrarian talking points on the scientific community itself. We show that although scientists are trained in dealing with uncertainty, there are several psychological reasons why scientists may nevertheless be susceptible to uncertainty-based argumentation, even when scientists recognize those arguments as false and are actively rebutting them. Specifically, we show that prolonged stereotype threat, pluralistic ignorance, and a form of projection (the third-person effect) may cause scientists to take positions that they would be less likely to take in the absence of outspoken public opposition. We illustrate the consequences of seepage from public debate into the scientific process with a case study involving the interpretation of temperature trends from the last 15 years. We offer ways in which the scientific community can detect and avoid such inadvertent seepage.

Martin, That abstract on the influence of the appeal to uncertainty and its effect of scientific research is fascinating. Thank you for citing it.

Once industry discovered the utility of the tactics used by the Tobacco industry to fight regulation and actions to discourage its use, they have used it in many areas ranging from campaigns against clean air and water, to the continued sale of ineffective and sometimes harmful vitamins, diet elixirs, and other fads, to any limitations on the fossil fuel industries.

As long as the general public is scientifically illiterate, and the Industries' very expensive, but skilled, propaganda works, any efforts to correct these dangerous problems are delayed, if not completely stopped.

Billions of dollars in marketing can really frustrate the truth, and swamp mere thousands of dollars of research.

link

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

It's all about the science and saving the world, right? No politics involved? No other agendas?

And aided by such scientific publications as the one put out by Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream

link

corrected by someone who knows math here:

link

But want to guess which will be read more and believed more by the "well informed voters" who also listen to the liars and hypocrites like Hansen, DiCaprio, Redford, Gore, Cameron and the IPCC itself?

And here I thought this thread was about diet science.

Nope. About junk science and the ability of folks who want to "prove" something that isn't necessarily so and showing how easy it is to do so.

My point above about "Ben and Jerry's Climate Science", though not purported to be a correctly done, peer reviewed article, will likely have a greater audience and convince more people than it should, based on a mix of bad information, bad presentation, and misleading information fed to an uninformed mass of people and folks who can't get beyond the packaging of the message…"Gosh, if Ben and Jerry are telling us this, it must really be serious."

I have heard of, but not yet seen their latest flavor "Awesome AGW" which comes pre-melted.

How about partisan junk criticism? Mr. David Allison, other than frequent post on the misnamed "Ameriican Thinker", all of which are claiming to prove that climate change is not occurring, does not seem to have any other credits, degrees, or work achiements in climate research. The closest I could find a possible resume is a Facebook site where someone with that name rants on about Obama, and seems to have studied architecture but without graduating. He now makes fishnets and skippers charters for a living.

It is interesting that no description or bio is given on the AT site. His arguments seem to lack any central idea but that Ben and Jerry are primarily very effective propagandists for the Climate Change conspiracy and also make ice cream. His arguments strangely manipulate the data on the broadsheet, and offers little of its own.
Partisan politics is easy, real science is hard.

Sure, the one in scare quotes is constrained by facts.

Like the facts from Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) and other such luminaries?

As for the bias of those with questions, I suppose there is total objectivity and no impact on the research or interpretation when the studies are funded by LW universities, governments who have declared war on coal, and foundations funded by the likes of Soros and Kerry? No influence in the UN IPCC when the UN is actively looking to change the world's economic development model and redistribute wealth.

Naaawww. It's just about finding the truth, right? No way any of that could influence any of the folks involved is there. Bunch of bleeding saints , they are.

The bottom line remains, though, as I've repeatedly pointed out, is it doesn't matter which side is right. And no, I'm not going to look up the links again. If you are that curious, it isn't hard to find my previous posts in this sort of thread.

"Setting an example is not the main means of influencing others; it is the only means."
~ Albert Einstein

The IPCC doesn't believe their own publications and their leadership by example is as effective as the hypocrites like DiCaprio, Redford, Gore, Cameron and so many other preachers of the religion who live high on the hog with carbon consumption, flying alone in private jets to resort weekend conferences where they can decry how the rest of the population is killing the world.

It has convinced the governments that it doesn't have to really take this seriously, go through the motions, kick the can down the road and posture and preen for the world audience about how dedicated they are.

Environmental concerns in one hand and use of government owned aircraft and personal planes for political and personal reasons? Family can't fly together to the same place? Doesn't matter what nation, it certainly does not equate the the concern over mother earth about which they keep bloviating and posturing – and then go out and massively consume petroleum based fuels.

Meanwhile, we have guys like Anti-Coal Billionaire Environmentalist Tom Steyer who made his fortune in coal. No hypocrisy there at all. Just woke up one day after making billions with absolutely no idea of what those industries did and decided to become a conscious environmentalist. Never occurred to him before that through all the years, all the protests, all the smog in China and elsewhere, all the earth days.

Nope. Just let me make my billions first and THEN I'll get a conscience.

In the mean time, there is no answer yet from anyone on how exactly to achieve these wonderful cut to the bone emissions by X date and do so in a manner which is both effective (assuming the warmists are right) as well as being acceptable to the governments of the world.

Germany is bringing more coal fired plants on line. India has said not only will they not cut emissions, they will be expanding as they have been to meet their country's needs NOW, not cut their throat economically for something that may or may not happen in a hundred years.

Who wants to build nuclear plants? There has been well funded and well connected opposition groups that have had great effect around the world in limiting or stopping altogether the building of new plants. That was pre-Fukushima.

Wind? way to inefficient, ineffective, unreliable and has its own environmental problems. For groups so worried about the snail darter, they seem very unconcerned about the bird deaths, particularly the golden eagles and sea birds.

Solar? Gotta love the slaughter of insects and birds there as well. "Streamers" they are called as they inadvertently fly into the death ray and are hopefully incinerated instantly rather than those who are just badly singed enough to drop, smoking, no longer able to fly, from the sky to their death below. But hey, IT'S GREEN ENERGY!

What a load of crap. Please spare me your self righteous comments and your pretty charts, and your political rhetoric.

Have a solution? Let's hear it. Better yet, tell the world and win the Nobel Peace prize.

If not, you are in the same category as the endless string of wrong "tipping point / gloom and doom" chicken littles who for decades have been wrong, time after time.

Nothing but meaningless noise.

My point above about "Ben and Jerry's Climate Science", though not purported to be a correctly done, peer reviewed article, will likely have a greater audience and convince more people than it should, based on a mix of bad information, bad presentation, and misleading information fed to an uninformed mass of people and folks who can't get beyond the packaging of the message…"Gosh, if Ben and Jerry are telling us this, it must really be serious."

Well, I for one don't take inforgraphics written by an ice cream company to be scientific truth. However, in this case, B&J did their homework since the figures are more or less spot on with the consensus. That's not an accident, since as you might have noticed at the bottom of the infographic in fine print they list their sources for each claim.

As for the so called "American Thinker", I must say that there is a world of a difference between knowing arithmetic and using them properly in the application of science. This is a derivative, and unoriginal series of denier memes, many of which have been discredited when there was a former CIA guy in the White House.

Naturally, it's "Greenhouse Gas Emissions". Not greenhouse gases in general, mind you, but specifically greenhouse gas emissions. Hmmmm. That's curious…. If all greenhouse gases, regardless of their source, were potential climate-change offenders, why would the graphic focus solely on emissions?

Because the natural carbon cycle more or less nets to zero. Humans are adding to the credit side of the ledger by taking carbon that has been sequestered for years – that is to say out of circulations – and putting it back into circulation.

I can only speculate that the answer is to discourage us from contemplating a couple of salient truths. The first truth is the percentage of our atmosphere comprised of CO2 -- roughly 400 parts per million. 400 ppm is 0.04%, which is 0.04 parts per hundred, which would be written in fraction form as 4/10,000.

And the point is… As big as the solar system is, there's a much smaller percentage that that that will support human life. Or to put it another way as one of my colleagues would say, would you want 400ppm of cyanide in your morning coffee?

The second truth is the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that we know results from human activity, which is about 4%. Since 4% of the numerator, 4, in the above fraction is 0.16, we adjust it to be 0.16/10,000. And now we see that the entire climate-change debate involves a portion of our atmosphere represented by the figure 0.0016%.

Again, more useless mathurbation. And I could go on point by point, but I have painting to do for tomorrow's club game.

Bob, I only read your second or third post.

Just walk away. The wilful ignorance will swarm you like a cloud of black flies on the tundra.

Humans are adding to the credit side of the ledger by taking carbon that has been sequestered for years

Martin, surely you've read my multiple times trying to explain that? It just gets ignored.
--
Tim

And JJ, I'm with you on solar and wind turbines. But you are all over the place, just like those black flies. :)
--
Tim

Enough already. I have posted a few links here that cover an array of climate change facts and scientific conclusions, as well as debunking the most common arguments of deniers.

This link is to the Skeptical Science page. It is entirely readable, easy to understand and well cited.

link

This Wiki link provides a long list of climate change positions from the most notable and respectable research institutions in the world.

link

There was that big deal about some climate scientists manipulating the data some years back. FactCheck.org explains it quite clearly. BTW, you might remember that during the 2004 VP debate Dick Cheney directed us to Factcheck.org to verify some of his points. So please, don't fall into that lame claim that it's a liberal mouthpiece.

link

97% of climate scientists assert that climate change is real, and that humans are contributing to it. In a previous thread, one of the deniers here claimed that the study was flawed. Well, here is a scientific paper describing the study and the methodology. Challenge it if you want. But the study is very robust.

link

Here's my favorite. Back in 2011 a notable climate scientist and climate change skeptic conducted a study, partly funded by the Kochs for the purpose of debunking climate change. This is just the news report, but if you google "Richard Muller physicist" you'll find plenty to read.

link

Finally, click here for your own copy of "The Debunking Handbook." It synchs nicely with the excellent report that Parzival linked to in his title post.

link

No one here is a climate scientist. Few are scientists at all. So it makes no sense to try to debate climate research issues and methodology, because we don't know what we are talking about.

My post is intended to provide paths to respected and notable scientific sources that do know what they are talking about. If you take the time to read them and still refuse to believe in what they have to say about climate change, then you are, by definition a "denier."

And aided by such scientific publications as the one put out by Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream

Where does Ben & Jerry's claim to be a scientific publication? Why would you argue that they are? They are just spreading a message. If you check your own link and scroll down a bit you will see who their sources are. So, if you think that B & J are full of chocolate fudge, then why not visit those sources yourself.

Personally, I like Cherry's Garcia. Oh, by the way, if you respond to this, please make it a long and rambling rant, so I won't get suckered into reading it.

If you don't have a solution, it doesn't matter what you think or believe is real. You are basically farting into the wind.

Just noise.

Tim, that is the bottom line for me whether you think I'm all over the place or not.

JJ

But….but….it was about diet science.

No it was about the ease with which science fraud can be spinner to sound convincing and get promoted as valid tests an results by lazy journalists.

Tim, that is the bottom line for me whether you think I'm all over the place or not.

I've always agreed that until viable alternate means of energy are found, fossil fuels are the way to go. But just like I believe there will never be a cure to diabetes because the pharmacy groups aren't really interested in funding such research that will cut a major cash flow (insulin, test strips), finding alternate means of energy are going to be opposed overtly or covertly by big oil.

But the bottom line for you has not been that, JJ, it has been politics, pure and simple. A lot of anti-global warming in the US is politics. I recall the last topic of yours on this subject I saw involved gloating. In the same way you continually go on about IPCC and the UN and refuse to understand/acknowledge the concept of sequestered CO2 Martin mentions here and which I have explained in some more detail.

You can say impracticality of solutions is your bottom line, but you make it obvious nearly every time that it's denial you follow. The limits and consequences of some alternatives make it easy for you to hide behind them. I know you better than that by now!

BTW, out of curiosity do you also deny ozone depleting substances such as Freon 12 and 14 deplete the ozone layer or is that a natural cycle too? I don't think members of a certain US political party made any movies about that one.
--
Tim

No it was about the ease with which science fraud can be spinner to sound convincing and get promoted as valid tests an results by lazy journalists.

Journalists have little or nothing to do with science. They can keep publishing crap and people with keep buying copy but that does not change the fact that hoaxes are not fact.

I've always agreed that until viable alternate means of energy are found, fossil fuels are the way to go. But just like I believe there will never be a cure to diabetes because the pharmacy groups aren't really interested in funding such research that will cut a major cash flow (insulin, test strips), finding alternate means of energy are going to be opposed overtly or covertly by big oil.

This is the actual crux of the matter. If there is no money in *it*, progress will be very slow.

*it* is whatever you want. It can be medicine, alternative fuel, unlimited cell phone usage, streaming media at a reasonable rate. It really isn't limited to science.

Yep, JJ alternates between gloating and Gish Galloping.

See also The Paralysis of Analysis and the Snow Job logical fallacy.

The evidence is compelling and, last I looked 97% of climate scientists concur on these findings.

This is a great example of exactly the problem of generalization that I am talking about. Look here. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Now, you can Google hundreds of articles that claim 97% of climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic origins of global warming. And many of them will cite this, and other similar research.

First, the paper says 2/3 (about) of the articles surveyed didn't even voice an opinion on it. It does say 97% of the 1/3 that did voice an opinion supported the idea. So it's not 97% of something, its 97% of one-third of something. Second, it's not any percentage of scientists, it's a percentage of papers written. The percentage of authors is later in the paper and it is ~98% of those voicing opinion, ~34% overall. And third, nowhere does it say that these are scientifically demonstrated conclusions about the link … they are "endorsements" and "opinions". And also, "implied" agreement, that is, the paper didn't say there was a link, but it said other things that people who say there is a link say. This is a great bit of other imprecision, since if you read something and see a link, you are inferring it, whether the author implied it or not. Related concepts, but different. Then again, these aren't linguists doing the study. :)

The papers studied all have (presumably) good, scientific data about climate phenomena and unsubstantiated statements, sometimes inferred by the study, about the link.

But, by God, that 97 number looks strong and it relates to something about support for anthropogenic warming, right? And this is the exact same issue with the diet science issues and many other ones. We demonstrate things empirically, but we start to say things in imprecise language about them, and give them quite a different meaning.

Y'all can claim whatever you like about me, but it doesn't make it so.

You can say impracticality of solutions is your bottom line, but you make it obvious nearly every time that it's denial you follow. The limits and consequences of some alternatives make it easy for you to hide behind them.

By that same logic, you, Martin, and several others are REALLY not coming from a scientific position, you are left wing anti-capitalist warmest alarmists. It is clear from your continued insistence about the need to do what the IPCC says. You make it obvious nearly every time by what you post that it is the case. The limits and consequences of the IPCC make sit easy for you to hide behind your claims otherwise.

You buying that? Didn't think so. But if you want to insist that you KNOW what my real bottom line is, then I have just acquired the same powers and can similarly see through your feeble attempts to hide the truth.

Politics involved? Absolutely. Look at what nations are doing in terms of rules, regulations, and intentionally trying to put industries out of business too support their political agenda. It cuts both ways.

The same with the ludicrous position that any study by a non-LW think tank or the petroleum industry is absolutely tainted, while at the same time insisting there is no bias, no agenda from studies done by or funded by LW universities, governments and organizations like the ones owned by Kerry and Soros.

Me mocking the IPCC? Absolutely, and will continue to do so. Regardless of the indignant comments and self serving links, none of you LWACWAs have responded with an explanation countering mine that the IPCC's argument that their record sized carbon footprint in South America from their last meeting proves they are either fools or liars.

To claim that their footprint is offset by trees already there means somehow those same trees were not already in use offsetting something else. If they believe otherwise, they are fools. If they don't believe their own explanation they are liars. You have an alternative? Seems pretty black and white to me. Similarly, if they are lying rather than morons, that makes them hypocrites. As does their claim that they "…need more clarity…" Before they can determine whether to stop their excessive pollution/carbon footprint.

None have responded as to why one of the great voices go AGW, Hansen, still has any credibility at all after predicting the coming ice age that never happened and the flooding of Manhattan in a certain number of years that hasn't happened. How many more times does he have to be so extremely wrong before y'all realize there is no credibility in what he says?

None have responded about the continued hypocrisy of all the celebrity and political "do as I say not as I do" prophets of doom.

None have responded to the fact that the UN who runs the IPCC and the other organization I previously linked stated that the purpose of the climate activism was not to save the planet but to transform the economic model for the world. Politics? You betcha! Especially if you read their write--ups of what is involved.

No, my bottom line IS that the positions of all of us doesn't matter without a solution. Tell me, how much money is being spent on research for how to deal with the dire predictions? How much is being spent for R&D on new energy (as opposed to lining the pockets of contributors like in the case of Solyndra and a number of others?

How much is being spent on biomass as a green energy source? Others? As compared to the politically driven continued research that seems to continue unabated even though the proponents are already convinced they have the answer?

No, I'm not a denier, and go back as far as you want in my posts you'll find I've been in favor of development of alternatives, but until we do, it is folly to think nations will cut their throats economically, especially when many key players have either promised to do so decades from now (meaningless commitment) or outright indicated they would not.

So all you left wing radical anti-capitalist warming alarmists (Tim taught me the skill to see through your puny efforts to hide the truth), any answers to my challenges? Or just more links and graphs? Any solution to the problem, or just making meaningless noise?

JJ

The Earth was warmer in the past.
The Earth was cooler in the past.

The Earth might be getting warmer.

I hate snow. I for one hope it gets warmer. /Things change, it's the nature of things to change. I don't want to lower my lifestyle one bit to make the world cooler. I want my air conditioning, and my private automobile, and my big house.

If global warming is a problem, then come up with a solution that does not involve my paying more taxes, or giving up anything. My whole life has been predictions of gloom and doom from those who want me to give up my middle class American existence. I am having none of it.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

So all you left wing radical anti-capitalist warming alarmists (Tim taught me the skill to see through your puny efforts to hide the truth), any answers to my challenges? Or just more links and graphs? Any solution to the problem, or just making meaningless noise?

How can you discuss solutions if you don't believe there is a problem? And you will never agree that there is a problem if you continue to blow off the facts and any source that doesn't agree with your personally constituted opinions.

Look, you are challenging climate change by posting a few, selected, un-sourced talking points. It is not incumbent on us to dispute your talking points. It is incumbent on YOU to challenge climate change science with science.

But that's the rub isn't it. You don't understand the science, and therefore deny it. So how could you ever construct a cogent challenge to it? You can't. And even if you tried, there really is no argument against climate change that is supported by science. It boils down to science vs. denial of science.

These debates are akin to a black & white religion vs. science debate. There will never be agreement because both sides are speaking entirely different languages, science on one side, faith & belief on the other. It is the same thing here. I (and others) base our argument on scientific research results, and you (and others) base your argument on what you believe, in other words you are arguing that science is wrong.

We will never agree. And as long as we don't, there will be no solutions, and the "mindless noise," is exactly what you and I are doing here right now.

The Earth was warmer in the past.

Not disputing this. However, Humans as well as the current ecosystem and food crops didn't evolve to for those conditions. Last time CO2 was at this level the dominant fauna in South America were the Terror Birds(Phorusrhacidae).

The Earth was cooler in the past.

Not disputing this, but considering the literature on CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it's highly doubtful that the earth will see the temperatures that existed while Homo Sapiens evolved and lived up until this point on earth for the foreseeable future (kiloyear+ timescale).

I for one hope it gets warmer.

For one thing, a warming climate will make extreme weather events (hot and cold) more likely. As a consequence, this will make farming more unpredictable leading to more crop loss events, which will raise the price of food. Furthermore, the warmer weather will also stunt yields on many crops, especially since the vast majority of staple crops are originally temperate zone plants and fare poorly above 30 degrees during the day and 25 degrees at night.

As a consequence, I hope that you don't like drinking whiskey, beer, coffee, tea, etc since those foodstuffs among many others foodstuffs are going to get expensive in the near future. Now undoubtedly gmo and new farming practices are going to mitigate the heat stress to some extent, but that's not going to be cheep, so prices are going to go up.

If global warming is a problem, then come up with a solution that does not involve my paying more taxes, or giving up anything. My whole life has been predictions of gloom and doom from those who want me to give up my middle class American existence. I am having none of it.

Well, I have one thing to say: You can't fight physics.

How can you discuss solutions if you don't believe there is a problem? And you will never agree that there is a problem if you continue to blow off the facts and any source that doesn't agree with your personally constituted opinions.

Whether intentionally missing the point entirely or not, you are completely missing the point.

It doesn't matter whether we agree or not. It doesn't matter if you are right or not. It doesn't even matter if we are talking about this issue or not.

My point is that if you, on whatever topic you like have amassed masses of data (correct or not, flawed or not) to the point you assert that the question is settled, my points are this:
1. If you do not have a solution that will be acceptable to everyone who has to comply, then it doesn't matter if you are right or not. Your solution will not work and you need to find another way to solve it, or a way to get every key player on board, or you have to admit that without everyone agreeing to your solution, it doesn't matter.
2. Spending millions (billions?) more to further "prove" what you already claim
M is settled is pointless. If it is settled, then you are wasting that money and should be using it to research or fund things that will mitigate what you say is certain, given that you can't get everyone needed on board with what you want.

It's that simple. If your plan is just ""kill you economic growth by cutting emissions to X level by Y year" and a number of major contributors to the problem say categorically that they will not do so, and fully intend to do even more, then it doesn't matter if you were right or not. It doesn't matter that your solution would have worked or not. If it isn't palatable to all the key players it isn't going to happen. All the links, graphs, 8 x 11 glossies with the circles and arrows that you produce to again claim "bu no listen, I AM right!!!!! Are pointless and do not matter.

So, again, whether we agree or not what solution do you have that the India's and third world expanding economies, and China and other key players will accept? Have one let's see it. Don't have one, and you've just proven my point.

And for Martin, if you can't fight physics and your dire predictions will prove true, then what workable, affordable, acceptable plan do you offer? India and others are waiting.

Don't have one? Then this is all pointless noise.

JJ

Some of this nonsense may be addressed by the new Google Algorithim that will rank sites not on "popularity" but on the degree that they are accurate and meet the known facts.

See: link

Interestingly enough the climate denier sites, the anti-vaxers, the Obama Kenya Muslim idiots, UN take-overs, airbases being used for concentration camps, health care death panel conspiracists, and Fox News are crying bloody murder about this! No longer will cross posting false statements across several sites drive up the listing of a site and its falsehoods, but, rather how accurately the statements on that site meet a huge database of documented fact.

FYI the Algorithim shows Fox News is inaccurate 61% of the time, but 35% of the public gets their "facts" from there!

The right will come unstuck about this! They love truthiness!

JJ, you are taking a new approach that just does the same thing you've always done.

Did everybody feel that way when whatever parts of the US were dealing with racial integration? If they did, I would assume things would be much worse than they are now.
--
Tim

They called it preserving "our way of life".

Tim,

It doesn't matter whether you are right (you aren't) about me or not.

My point is that if you have major players who absolutely will not do what you want, providing them another century of graphs, and links, and write-ups proving you are not just right but really, Really, REALLY right, if you don't have a solution that the key players will follow, then you have no solution.

Regardless whether I'm in the equation or not.

Which then raises the question that given you are convinced you are right, and that the needed solution is unattainable because of the position of key, needed players, is it better to spend more money on research that confirms what you assert is true but they don't care, or is it better spent on research for alternative energy sources, and steps that need to be taken to mitigate what you are convinced is going to happen?

I think the IPCC folks have shown that they either don't believe their stuff, or don't care. So I suspect they'll be perfectly happy to spend money badly holding unneeded, expensive, large carbon footprint meetings.

But is that what they should be doing?

Take me completely out of the discussion. Stop trying to argue what I do and don't believe. Doesn't matter.

The questions I've raised are perfectly valid questions. If the Inspector General asked the same questions they would' be any more valid. If any of the internationally famous deniers asked them, they are no less valid.

Stop trying to make this about me and start answering the questions.

JJ

My point is that if you have major players who absolutely will not do what you want, providing them another century of graphs, and links, and write-ups proving you are not just right but really, Really, REALLY right, if you don't have a solution that the key players will follow, then you have no solution.

The solution is the responsibility of the public policy makers, not the climate scientist. As I stated in your other scree, science can identify the problem (CO2 accumulation) and a general solution (reduce CO2 emissions). HOW you get that done is a political question, NOT a scientific question.

Whether intentionally missing the point entirely or not, you are completely missing the point.

I didn't miss your point. You didn't make a point. For example:

I think the IPCC folks have shown that they either don't believe their stuff, or don't care. So I suspect they'll be perfectly happy to spend money badly holding unneeded, expensive, large carbon footprint meetings.

What are you talking about? That's empty innuendo. and as such, not worth addressing. Nothing more.

There is no science to support anything you have said here.

The questions I've raised are perfectly valid questions.

For the most part, they are not. Take your statement regarding the IPCC. It is intentionally ambiguous, intentionally lacking of any facts that you can be called on. This is followed by the question:

But is that what they should be doing?

Since this question refers to an intentionally vague, unfounded personal opinion, the question is not valid to the discussion.

So, again, whether we agree or not what solution do you have that the India's and third world expanding economies, and China and other key players will accept? Have one let's see it. Don't have one, and you've just proven my point.

They already have. In fact, I seem to recall that I sent you a link some weeks ago that discussed the concerns that China has about their environment, and the steps they have taken to turn things around. Some were quite aggressive. In some ways they are doing more than we are. I can dig it up and send it to you again if you wish. BTW, as a sidebar, China just outlawed smoking in all public buildings. Pretty progressive, huh?

So here again, you are making assumptions that have little if any basis in fact and presenting them as if they are common knowledge.

I thought this quote fit this discussion nicely:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.(Isaac Azimov)

What are you talking about? That's empty innuendo. and as such, not worth addressing. Nothing more.

You need to start taking notes rather than make statements such as that.

Empty innuendo? These are the folks who I've REPEATEDLY pointed out are liars or morons for their claim that their record sized carbon footprint was offset by existing trees – as if those trees had an on off switch and were not already being accounted for. These are the same folks who claimed they couldn't reduce their meeting footprint until they had more clarity on the matter. Links previously supplied. I mean, how long have they been preaching about carbon footprints? Decades? And they need "more clarity" before they can make a decision? I KNOW! Maybe they could do climate research on the effect of carbon footprints generated by people on earth…oh, that's right..that's what they have been researching all this time. How silly of me to expect they'd read and follow what they've written.

You want to explain how that logic makes any sense?

They are obviously, by their actions and their statements likely to do just what I've said..

My questions are completely valid, and ignoring them doesn't make them invalid. Go back, look them up and answer them. Just blowing them off does not change them.

China may have reduced some, but they need a lot more to even scratch the surface. I notice you and all the others fighting with me like bringing up China but always seem to forget I've also posted links saying Germany is increasing the number of coal fired power plants. You also seem to forget the longs where India has said that not only will they not cut back, they are expanding their (evil, polluting) power generation as their people and their economy needs it NOW. Pretty capitalistic, huh?

Nice quote, but it ignores the large number of climate scientists, and other scientists who have their own studies and do not agree with the IPCC. That isn't ignorance, it is different conclusions from other facts.

@coastal2,
As in the other thread I'll happily concede that the how isn't the scientists responsibility and does belong to the politicians who have largely blown off the IPCC. I'll similarly ask the same question as in my other "scree", which is, if you are convinced the science is settled, and it is apparent there is not an economically feasibly solution that will be followed by all the needed parties, doesn't it make more sense to spend research money on alternative power and mitigation efforts to help mitigate what youKNOW is coming, rather tan continuing to spend obscene amounts of money doing further research to "prove" what you already claim is settled science?

mandt2, I love that Asimov quote.

I also like his essay called the Relativity of Wrong link which I've plugged here a few times.

mandt2- I had forgotten that Asimov quote, thank you for bringing it up.

Since y'all are so fond of quoting Azimov:

You don't need to predict the future. Just choose a future -- a good future, a useful future -- and make the kind of prediction that will alter human emotions and reactions in such a way that the future you predicted will be brought about. Better to make a good future than predict a bad one.

link

Somehow, I don't see that as what the IPCC or you are doing. Did you forget that one?

There are no happy endings in history, only crisis points that pass.

400 PPM?

"It is a mistake," he said, " to suppose that the public wants the environment protected or their lives saved and that they will be grateful to any idealist who will fight for such ends. What the public wants is their own individual comfort. We know that well enough from our experience in the environmental crisis of the twentieth century. Once it was well known that cigarettes increased the incidence of lung cancer, the obvious remedy was to stop smoking, but the desired remedy was a cigarette that did not cause cancer. When it became clear that the internal-combustion engine was polluting the atmosphere dangerously, the obvious remedy was to abandon such engines, and the desired remedy was to develop non-polluting engines."

link
and that is human nature. And that is why the politicians will never agree to what you want.

All of which brings us back to my point that it doesn't matter who is right.

JJ