Skepticism about Climate Change

[Alan Klein]

The sky is falling again, only worse. 
A new study by Scripps Institution of Oceanography finds a 5 percent chance that rapid global warming will be “catastrophic” or worse for the human race.  That's 1 chance in 20.  Hmmm.  How does one handicap those odds?  Why not 1 in 5 or 1 in 100?  It's this kind of scare tactics that put more people in the denier column. 

https://timesofsandiego.com/tech/2017/09/15/scripps-5-chance-of-catastrophic-global-warming-by-centurys-end/

[Alan Goldhammer]

Why would you be opposed to laws that would require no claims being made about dietary supplements?

Alan, they are making claims but in a way that skirts the law.  Sure they add a disclaimer that the data has not been reviewed by the FDA but that's only window dressing as most people don't understand what it means.  Secondly, they do a very poor job of quality control in manufacturing and also don't report adverse reactions. 

 I worked on this issue a number of years ago when the legislation was pending in Congress and to be blunt, a lot of money was passed under the table.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, they are making claims but in a way that skirts the law.  Sure they add a disclaimer that the data has not been reviewed by the FDA but that's only window dressing as most people don't understand what it means.  Secondly, they do a very poor job of quality control in manufacturing and also don't report adverse reactions. 

 I worked on this issue a number of years ago when the legislation was pending in Congress and to be blunt, a lot of money was passed under the table.

If they're skirting the law, why can't they be prosecuted?  What can be done anyway about them?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The sky is falling again, only worse. 
A new study by Scripps Institution of Oceanography finds a 5 percent chance that rapid global warming will be “catastrophic” or worse for the human race...

I think the chance is much higher: 50/50. Either it will, or it won't

[Alan Klein]

I think the chance is much higher: 50/50. Either it will, or it won't

Now you got me worried.  Even money!

[Ray]

Clinical trials can and have been done on a variety of vitamins and other supplements.  Such trials are not inexpensive to conduct, but they do provide scientific evidence about the efficacy of the product in question.  I take the AREDS-2 vitamin supplement daily to prevent age related macular degeneration, a disabling eye condition that can lead to deteriorating vision.  The National Eye Institute sponsored a large clinical trial of the vitamin and anti-oxidant mixture ( https://nei.nih.gov/areds2 ) that contains Vitamin C, zinc, copper and a couple of plant-based compounds.  The trials showed that this mixture helps prevent further deterioration of the retina and my yearly retina scans show that in my case there has been no change.

Alan,
I'm not disparaging the efficacy of vitamins and natural dietary supplements. I'm just highlighting the complexity of the issues. There's also a large range of natural products which have been used by traditional societies as medicines and spices, for many centuries, which are claimed to have health benefits without the adverse side-effects of synthetic drugs.

Sometimes a few modern studies at universities reveal  very promising results for such products, then other studies fail to replicate the results, for reasons that are often not explained or delved into.

Quite often, the funds to do more research are not available if the product cannot be patented. I'm thinking here of natural products such as Ginseng, Turmeric, Saffron and that compound in grapes called Resveratrol, which is considered to be one of the benefits of red wine, and is claimed to prolong life. (Although red wine does not contain enough Resveratrol to be effective, unless one drinks hug quantities. )

I chose the example of Vitamin C because there still seems to be a controversy about the benefits of dosages higher the recommended minimum requirement of around 75 mg per day. I suspect the reason for this lack of certainty is due to the great variability of human biology and the fact that that the presence or absence of so many other factors can influence the results during scientific trials. Everything tends to be related in some way or to some degree.

For example, the bioavailability of certain supplements often depends on the presence of other substances. Calcium supplements are apparently not as effective if the person is lacking in Vitamin D. Before this was known, I can imagine how varied the research results would have been when providing only calcium supplements to the people involved in the trials.

This reminds me a of FACE experiment I read about recently (Free Air CO2 Enrichment) whereby CO2 is wafted over plants in their natural environment to examine its effect on growth.

The results of this particular experiment showed no significant increase in growth, contrary to other experiments which did show a significant increase in growth. (One can imagine the alarmists jumping up and down with glee    ).

However, later examination of the techniques used in the experiment revealed that the researchers had wafted CO2 over the plants only during the daytime, in order to save money. They had assumed that CO2 is taken up by all plants only during times of sunlight when photosynthesis takes place. This is apparently not true.

"Crassulacean acid metabolism, or CAM, is a mechanism whereby plants typically take up and store carbon dioxide during the night and use it in photosynthetic carbon dioxide fixation during the day, when sunlight is available."

[jtmiller]

I'll try to explain it again so that newcomers don't have to wade through 53 pages. 

So in summary, you're right and all those scientists never learned how to do science.

What other fields do you hold in contempt?

jim

[Peter McLennan]

  People have their own interests.  ...He doesn't care about climate change as much as creating an environment where his country's products will sell better than ours.  His country gets richer as ours gets poorer.

Yah. Right. Because it's really all about the money and nothing else. Who cares about the fact that we all live on the same planet?  Who cares that we're ALL at risk? Who cares that we all suffer when somebody craps in the nest? 

What's really important is that we can keep on buying $2 Big Whoppers and a large Coke.

Would you like fries with that, Alan?

[Alan Klein]

Yah. Right. Because it's really all about the money and nothing else. Who cares about the fact that we all live on the same planet?  Who cares that we're ALL at risk? Who cares that we all suffer when somebody craps in the nest? 

What's really important is that we can keep on buying $2 Big Whoppers and a large Coke.

Would you like fries with that, Alan?

If it isn't about the money and economies, why did the Paris Accord allow China, the second largest economy in the world,  to not have to do anything to lower their CO2 production until 2030?  After all, they are the biggest CO2 producing country in the world?  At 30% vs. America's 14%, China represents about a third of the total CO2 production, and more than double America's.   In fact, it is China whose CO2 has gone up from 27% to 30% while America has gone down from 17% to 14% over the last few years, all without any Accord.  And China will continue to increase.  In addition, the Accord allows China to build 800 coal-fired electric generation plants over the next ten years while America will build none and is in fact closing many of ours.   Without China, nothing is going to happen with CO2 production in the world.  It's an exercise in futility without them.  It seems that China is the one "crapping" on the rest of the world, not America.

Because of China being let off the hook by the Paris Accord, America's and the rest of the world economies and jobs would be punished while the worse miscreant China can continue to more effectively compete economically against all of us while increasing their CO2 production without any impediments for the next 13 years.    Why have you allowed the Chinese to bamboozle you?   

[pegelli]

If it isn't about the money and economies, why did the Paris Accord allow China, the second largest economy in the world,  to not have to do anything to lower their CO2 production until 2030?  After all, they are the biggest CO2 producing country in the world?  At 30% vs. America's 14%, China represents about a third of the total CO2 production, and more than double America's.   In fact, it is China whose CO2 has gone up from 27% to 30% while America has gone down from 17% to 14% over the last few years, all without any Accord.  And China will continue to increase.  In addition, the Accord allows China to build 800 coal-fired electric generation plants over the next ten years while America will build none and is in fact closing many of ours.   Without China, nothing is going to happen with CO2 production in the world.  It's an exercise in futility without them.  It seems that China is the one "crapping" on the rest of the world, not America.

Because of China being let off the hook by the Paris Accord, America's and the rest of the world economies and jobs would be punished while the worse miscreant China can continue to more effectively compete economically against all of us while increasing their CO2 production without any impediments for the next 13 years.    Why have you allowed the Chinese to bamboozle you?

All lies and excuses to try and cover the bad US prformance, the US is the biggest CO2 producer in the world (by person) by a long shot and already for a long time. That's why you should do more then China. Stick your head in the sand when you want and blame another country that has 4 times the population, makes lots of your consumer goods (and therefore emits CO2 on your behalf) and still emits less then you do.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

If it isn't about the money and economies, why did the Paris Accord allow China, the second largest economy in the world,  to not have to do anything to lower their CO2 production until 2030?  After all, they are the biggest CO2 producing country in the world?

And they have the largest population in the world. In fact, they produce much less CO2 per Capita compared to an average American.

Besides, you do not seem (willing) to understand the Paris agreement, which makes discussing it, well, difficult. But you are wrong about your assumptions. Countries have submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), and all those countries agreed to that, including the USA. Without full participation of all participants, some might feel less compelled to stick to their voluntary promises.

But we've been over all this already.

Cheers,
Bart

[Robert Roaldi]

Global view: https://eos.org/opinions/taking-the-pulse-of-the-planet?utm_source=eos&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EosBuzz091517.

[Alan Klein]

All lies and excuses to try and cover the bad US prformance, the US is the biggest CO2 producer in the world (by person) by a long shot and already for a long time. That's why you should do more then China. Stick your head in the sand when you want and blame another country that has 4 times the population, makes lots of your consumer goods (and therefore emits CO2 on your behalf) and still emits less then you do.

China is producing 800 coal fired electric plants.  Yet, you so say nothing about that.  You argue per capita, but don't complain about the fact that China has 1.4 billion people. One out five people on the earth are Chinese.   Population in itself is the biggest contributing problem with the environment, pollution and other problems effecting the earth.   China is growing by leaps and bounds all adding to the CO2 so it will probably increase from 30% to 40% by 2030.  The earth cares little about per capita.  The point is China produces 1/3 of the total CO2 produced in the world.  They should be required to do something by Paris otherwise the whole exercise will be like shoveling sh!t against the incoming tide. 

[Robert Roaldi]

They should be required to do something by Paris otherwise the whole exercise will be like shoveling sh!t against the incoming tide.

What incoming tide? If you don't believe that human activity is causing global warming, then why curtail China's activities?

[Alan Klein]

And they have the largest population in the world. In fact, they produce much less CO2 per Capita compared to an average American.

Besides, you do not seem (willing) to understand the Paris agreement, which makes discussing it, well, difficult. But you are wrong about your assumptions. Countries have submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), and all those countries agreed to that, including the USA. Without full participation of all participants, some might feel less compelled to stick to their voluntary promises.

But we've been over all this already.

Cheers,
Bart

Exactly my point.  China doesn't participate.  Why should we participate, or even you?  You get China to participate like everyone else, then maybe we'll get back on board.  Until then, Hasta la vista, baby. 

[Alan Klein]

What incoming tide? If you don't believe that human activity is causing global warming, then why curtail China's activities?

I didn't want to conflate the issues.  The point I'm making is that if the US and other countries are participating in some agreement, then China, the largest producer of CO2, should be doing something as well. 

[Alan Klein]

By the way, India produces 7% of the world's CO2, the third largest producer.  It  is also off the hook until 2030.  And they're going to double their coal use in that time while America reduces its.  So China and India combined is currently 37% of the world's CO2.    Yet both don't have to do anything until 2030 and in fact are increasing their CO2 production.  By 2030, they'll be at 50%.  Paris accord is a pipe dream without those two countries participating.  Can someone explain why Paris let them off the hook?  Can someone explain how you're going to accomplish any reduction without these two countries who are in fact increasing their CO2? 

[pegelli]

The earth cares little about per capita. 

We've been over this before, per capita is the only useful measure to compare countries, otherwise you could also say that there are 193 countries who emit less then the US and should also be off the hook, which is obviously nonsense and you're a smart guy, but since you're afraid it will cost you money you keep critiqueing China and close your eyes for the biggest CO2 emitter of all times, the US citizens. And saying there are too many people there is also a crazy argument, especially they emit less then half of what a US person emits in CO2.

And since China produces a lot of your consumer goods even part of their CO2 emission is on your behalf.

Obviously the US is free to pull out of the Paris accord, but don't expect us to be silent about the sleezy, wrong, non-sensical, "stick your head in the sand" arguments you use to defend your pulling out.

[pegelli]

I didn't want to conflate the issues. 

You continuously are, so why not now

[pegelli]

Figures don't lie: A US citizen emits on average 16,1 ton CO2 per year, very few countries can beat that maximum.

But lyers figure: It ain't so bad because we only have about 323 million people and China emits more