Global Cooling. The sky is falling.

[Alan Klein]

Peter, that isn't good news.  However, rice will be developed that would not only grow more due to the CO2 increase, but will still maintain the same nutritional value.  Genetic engineering and crop improvement have changed many food types over the years.  Breeds of rice will be developed to counteract the effect the article addresses.  Their were prediction forty years ago that there would be a world starvation to occur many years back to the increase population.  Yet here we all are.  That prediction went the way of many dire predictions.  Man somehow figures out how to address these kinds of issues.

[Alan Klein]

Here's how the US National Institutes of Health scientists conspired with the alcohol industry to do studies that would have been tainted.  Fortunately, someone at the NIH stopped it.  I wonder how many close relationships there are (were) between the Environmental Protection Agency and university climatologists who get EPA money for their research? 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/18/health/nih-alcohol-study.html

[jeremyrh]

When you reach down to personal insults, the discussion is over. 

We can but hope.

[Robert Roaldi]

Here's how the US National Institutes of Health scientists conspired with the alcohol industry to do studies that would have been tainted.  Fortunately, someone at the NIH stopped it.  I wonder how many close relationships there are (were) between the Environmental Protection Agency and university climatologists who get EPA money for their research? 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/18/health/nih-alcohol-study.html

Why do you keep harping back to one discredited work about a bunch of people who went "off the reservation" to use Alan's words? Is this criticism by innuendo, find one thing that went wrong and make silly and ridiculous claims about scientific research in general? Funny you don't apply those same standards to your current President.

In the past few pages, you've expressed a disregard for the dangers of micro-plastics and some bizarre belief that widespread climate warming might be good. Are you also in favour of rolling back pollution controls on automobiles because "they might cost too much", despite the evidence that these regulations have provided a net benefit to everyone? And in case you haven't noticed, cars are better now in every way.

It's interesting to me how people who raise the issue of changes "costing too much" do so in the belief that they are being "realistic" while others are dreamers. Must be the illusion of having done a cost vs benefits analysis. But those cost vs benefit analyses are always deliberately incomplete, they always leave out the costs of NOT doing anything. Do you think no one notices?

[Alan Klein]

Why do you keep harping back to one discredited work about a bunch of people who went "off the reservation" to use Alan's words? Is this criticism by innuendo, find one thing that went wrong and make silly and ridiculous claims about scientific research in general? Funny you don't apply those same standards to your current President.

In the past few pages, you've expressed a disregard for the dangers of micro-plastics and some bizarre belief that widespread climate warming might be good. Are you also in favour of rolling back pollution controls on automobiles because "they might cost too much", despite the evidence that these regulations have provided a net benefit to everyone? And in case you haven't noticed, cars are better now in every way.

It's interesting to me how people who raise the issue of changes "costing too much" do so in the belief that they are being "realistic" while others are dreamers. Must be the illusion of having done a cost vs benefits analysis. But those cost vs benefit analyses are always deliberately incomplete, they always leave out the costs of NOT doing anything. Do you think no one notices?

The revolving door between government and private companies has been a problem complained about for decades by Democrats and Republicans alike.  It's so bad that lobbyists are forbidden to lobby for one year after they leave government service.  The current administration raised that to 5 years. 

My NIH post is one example how these cozy relationships exist.  The public gets bad advice from research that is tainted.  Researchers knowingly or subconsciously put their thumbs on the scales knowing that research funding depends on toeing the line with the agencies that provide the research funding.  It also gives government employees an incentive to look the other way.  They know that someday they'll be looking for a job in private industry.  Liberals have been complaining about this for decades.  Now suddenly you deny the problem exists.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...the costs of NOT doing anything...

If the cost of your funeral might reach $1 million (in today's dollars) 20 years from now, would you rather kill yourself today?

In other words, would you prefer the certainty of the smaller amount to uncertainty of the larger and take the action today? I certainly don't want to give my certain tax dollars today to prevent what might, with a great deal of uncertainty, happen tomorrow... or not.

[Alan Goldhammer]

My NIH post is one example how these cozy relationships exist.  The public gets bad advice from research that is tainted.  Researchers knowingly or subconsciously put their thumbs on the scales knowing that research funding depends on toeing the line with the agencies that provide the research funding.  It also gives government employees an incentive to look the other way.  They know that someday they'll be looking for a job in private industry.  Liberals have been complaining about this for decades.  Now suddenly you deny the problem exists.

95% of all clinical trials for new drugs are funded by the pharmaceutical company that is developing the drug.  Do you think these are all tainted?

[Alan Klein]

95% of all clinical trials for new drugs are funded by the pharmaceutical company that is developing the drug.  Do you think these are all tainted?

We're not talking about drugs here but climate change.  Here's a link to EPA awards for climate change and other EPA related research.  It shows topic, award amounts, institutions getting the funding and principal investigators. 
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/searchControlled.main?RequestTimeout=180&records_per_page=ALL&abstyperesearch=on&abstypegrants=on&identifier=on&institute=on&annual=on&pubcount=on&principal=on&grantamt=on&proposedstart=on&addRptOption=on&hiliteOption=on&refreshPage=True&txtSearch=&RESCAT=1171&RFA_AO=1

Here's the general page on EPA's climate change research grants.
https://www.epa.gov/research-grants/climate-change-research-grants

[Alan Goldhammer]

EPA grants are a drop in the bucket compared to how much basic research is funded by NIH.  Do you think the over $20B/year that NIH spends funding university investigators is tainted?  You cannot be selective (maybe you can) and single out one group and not another.

[Alan Klein]

EPA grants are a drop in the bucket compared to how much basic research is funded by NIH.  Do you think the over $20B/year that NIH spends funding university investigators is tainted?  You cannot be selective (maybe you can) and single out one group and not another.

I would think that the National Institutes of Health (NIH)  has higher standards than the politically moved Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), especially as it was under Obama.  He used the EPA to push his agenda on pollution and climate change.  So EPA administrators who awarded research grants favored those who supported Obama's agenda.  So now Trump is doing the opposite.  The EPA is a political football.  I wouldn't believe anything that came out of there.   I think and hope that isn't the case with the NIH.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Who runs their life based on what some scientists say.

Some? Not many, one might hope. Most of them? I start paying attention.

You have to use some discernment, or at least I do.

Discernment? Or flat out denial because it suits your personal agenda better?

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

A concept relentlessly promoted here; that CO2 is good for food production.  In fact, recently cast in serious doubt. Yes, bigger crops.  No, not better food.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/june-9-2018-rising-co2-levels-make-food-less-nutritious-neonics-and-bees-tricking-facial-recognition-1.4696119/rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-are-turning-rice-and-fish-into-junk-food-1.4696123

Hi Peter,

Thanks for that link. As I've mentioned before (by now buried under an avalanche of nonsensical statements by deniers), elevated biomass growth, doesn't necessarily mean it has higher nutritional value. More is less?

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Here's how the US National Institutes of Health scientists conspired with the alcohol industry to do studies that would have been tainted.  Fortunately, someone at the NIH stopped it.

So, what you are reporting is that the Scientific Process, rooted out the aberration?

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Why do you keep harping back to one discredited work about a bunch of people who went "off the reservation" to use Alan's words? Is this criticism by innuendo, find one thing that went wrong and make silly and ridiculous claims about scientific research in general? Funny you don't apply those same standards to your current President.

Indeed, if anything, it shows that the scientific process works. Bogus 'reports' get rooted out, and will rarely be referenced ever again, especially by reputable researchers. Quality over quantity.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...elevated biomass growth, doesn't necessarily mean it has higher nutritional value...

Well, pardon us, while for trying to feed seven billion people, for missing to provide filet mignons for everybody (or whatever your macrobiotic, vegan, gluten-free, organic, responsibly sourced, fair-trade equivalent is). Sheesh!

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The revolving door between government and private companies has been a problem complained about for decades by Democrats and Republicans alike.

This seems to suggest that you only put 'faith' in USA produced 'narratives'.

A kind piece of advice, the US is not the world anymore, certainly it has not been for a long time, and especially it has not since recent time. In fact, (most of) the rest of the world has moved on since WW2, and has improved way beyond their old shadow.

Cheers,
Bart

[LesPalenik]

Well, pardon us, while for trying to feed seven billion people, for missing to provide filet mignons for everybody (or whatever your macrobiotic, vegan, gluten-free, organic, responsibly sourced, fair-trade equivalent is). Sheesh!

I think, the decreased food quality in general has more to do with increasing profits for the large farms, as well as the fertilizer and proprietory seed companies than trying to feed all seven billion people.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Well, Les, we ARE feeding seven billion after all, aren't we?

[LesPalenik]

I'm growing my own tomatoes. Big difference from the greenhouse plants.
The California strawberries are cheaper here than those grown in Ontario. Big and hard, they must be from the 7-billion production line.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Well, Les, we ARE feeding seven billion after all, aren't we?

Hi Slobodan,

Are 'we' (barely) feeding (some of) them (for commercial motives), or nourishing them?

Cheers,
Bart