Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 54   Go Down

Author Topic: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science  (Read 50337 times)

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7393
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #520 on: August 22, 2019, 07:30:20 am »

Yes. They believe that climate change is man driven. Like 97% of the scientific community. Hardly surprising.

Can you point how this bias has influenced the objectivity of their analysis of the media coverage about scientific publications about global warming?

If you can't point out any wrong doing, please explain why I should not read your comment as an ad hominem attack on the people whose view differs from yours?

Cheers,
Bernard

How about when Man was not around?

http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html

https://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7393
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #521 on: August 22, 2019, 07:33:11 am »

The only people hiding climate change warnings from the public are....

wait for it....


The fossil fuel industry!  Surprise, surprise.  They knew of the dangers way back when.  Yet, they chose to hide it.  I wonder why?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/13/climate-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968

Oh, wait.  I forgot.  "all markets are free"   :)

You mean the same ones who invest billions in alternative energy sources? And lead the research in those areas?

I suppose you have stopped using fossil fuel - derived products?

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #522 on: August 22, 2019, 07:54:45 am »

How about when Man was not around?

I'm guessing that before Man was around, he wasn't responsible for CO2 levels? A stab in the dark, I know....
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #523 on: August 22, 2019, 08:24:28 am »

The issue is we're spending trillions of dollars on global warming supposedly to help future generations.

The real issue is that whether or not the bill is trillions, we're handing the bill to future generations.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #524 on: August 22, 2019, 08:26:30 am »

Quote
I would suggest that you 'climate alarmists' do a bit of reading on the history of science and the 'methodology' of science, which requires repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, changing one variable at a time to observe its effect.

Thanks for the advice - I must have missed that during my lifelong career as a scientist, as, indeed, it appears that the climate science community did.

I doubt that you missed it. I suspect you are in a state of denial, for various emotional reasons.  ;)

Quote
Still, some guy on the internet says it's all fine, so everything's hunky dory.

I don't know which guy you are referring to. I've certainly never thought that everything is 'hunky dory'. It has always seemed to me that much of the the world is in a mess due to the irrational and self-serving behaviour of so many people, and the corruption and/or incompetence of so many governments.

In order to solve a problem, it helps to precisely identify the causes. Right at the moment there appears to be unprecedented forest burning in the Amazon. I'm glad this is not attributed to 'anthropogenic global warming'.

According to the National Geographic https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/wildfires-in-amazon-caused-by-deforestation/

“There’s no question that it’s a consequence of the recent uptick in deforestation.“

"Environmentalists have been raising the alarm about deforestation since the country’s current president Jair Bolsonaro was elected in 2018. A major part of his campaign message called for opening up the Amazon for business, and since he’s been in power, he’s done just that.

Data released by INPE earlier this month indicated that more forest has been cleared in Brazil this summer alone than in the last three years combined."
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #525 on: August 22, 2019, 08:30:56 am »

The real issue is that whether or not the bill is trillions, we're handing the bill to future generations.

You're right - we f*** the planet, and hand our kids the bill.
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #526 on: August 22, 2019, 08:38:21 am »

Scientific studies dating from the late 1940s showed a correlation between high-fat diets and high-cholesterol levels, suggesting that a low-fat diet might prevent heart disease in high-risk patients. By the 1960s, the low-fat diet began to be touted not just for high-risk heart patients, but as good for the whole nation. After 1980, the low-fat approach became an overarching ideology, promoted by physicians, the federal government, the food industry, and the popular health media.

 A more recent view is expressed in the following video, which is very long, consisting of 3 sections. The speaker is a very qualified medical practitioner with post-graduate degrees in Neuroscience and Nutrition.

"Published on Jan 5, 2017
For the last 40-50 years, we have fought against “bad” cholesterol and “evil” fats. Dr Natasha Campbell-McBride explains how useful and healthy cholesterol is for us: it reduces the risk of heart attack, prevents arteriosclerosis and can even increase fertility.
Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, Cambridge, England at the
21st International "New Scientific Outlook" World Congress 2016,
Ulm, Germany, 04.11.2016."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7OQT1SHf9w&feature=youtu.be

In case the relevance of this analogy, comparing the complexity and uncertainty of diet with the complexity and uncertainty of the world's climate system, is still confusing for some of you, I'll try to elucidate.

All the applications and products of scientific research, that impress us and contribute to our prosperity and well-being, are required to be thoroughly tested to ensure that they work. A new drug that is claimed to cure a disease, has to go through a long process of testing procedures, usually beginning with creatures that have a short life-span, such as mice and rats, then sometimes followed by tests on creature more similar to us, such as rabbits, dogs and monkeys, and finally on groups of humans, provided the previous tests showed benefits and no harm.

The results of such tests can be observed in a relatively short time, ranging from a few days to a few weeks to a few months. However, the long term effects of certain drugs taken regularly are not initially known, and only come to light years later. Such drugs are then withdrawn from the market. The experiment is over.

If CO2 were a poisonous chemical like Arsenic, which can be tolerated only in very small quantities, then I could appreciate that raising levels by 50% or more could be dangerous. But obviously CO2 is nothing like Arsenic. It's more like a water-soluble vitamin, such as Vitamin C. There is a recommended minimum dosage required to prevent scurvy and other diseases, just as there's a recommended minimum quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere to prevent biodiversity collapse. However, taking more than the recommended minimum dosage is most likely beneficial in general.

I would suggest that you 'climate alarmists' do a bit of reading on the history of science and the 'methodology' of science, which requires repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, changing one variable at a time to observe its effect.

There is a distinction to be made between a 'faith in science', and a 'faith in the methodology of science'. Can you see the distinction, Bernard?
Ray, your post fails on several levels.  The example of high cholesterol and diet came from observational studies began decades ago.  It's a classic example of how scientific knowledge is used to improve the recommendations.  Initially, it was high blood pressure that was linked to adverse cardiac health events.  Blood pressure was simple to measure and getting the statistical correlation was straight forward.  Cholesterol levels were next up and once clinical lab tests for blood levels were developed it was something easy to examine.  However that did not tell all the story.  The ratio of high density and low density lipoproteins that carry cholesterol were the important factor.  Any trained biochemist knows the central role of cholesterol biosynthesis and it's importance but to argue that it is all good is false.

Your statement "all the applications of scientific research are tested" is misleading.  The level of testing is what matters.  I don't know how things are done in your part of the world but in the US, dietary supplements can be marketed with a simple disclaimer that the '...studies have not been reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration...'  In other words, there is no review at a high level that the claims on the label are true.  Pharmaceuticals undergo rigorous testing for both safety and efficacy as you describe and anyone who works in the pharma industry (as I did for most of my career) knows that the full information on a new drug is only known after it has been on the market and ongoing safety and efficacy information continues to be gathered and evaluated.  In the US companies are required to file yearly reports on all new information about the drug they market and important safety information has to be sent in to the FDA for evaluation right away.

The statement comparing CO2 to arsenic is wrong.  Certainly carbon monoxide, CO, is an apt comparator to arsenic.  CO2 cannot be compared to a vitamin based on definitional grounds.  Plants have an absolute requirement for 'large' amounts of CO2 so that they may synthesize sugars.  Vitamins are only required in very trace amounts and are not assembled into carbohydrates, proteins or lipids.

While reading about the history of science is interesting, it's not a substitute for understanding scientific principles.  Way back in 1969 when I was finishing my chemistry degree I took a course in photochemistry that included a large section on atmospheric chemistry.  Greenhouse gas phenomena was known at that time but the ultimate magnitude of it's impact was not.  things evolved the impact of SST aircraft on the ozone layer was shown, the impact of chloro- fluoro-carbon refridgerants was demonstrated (and now highly regulated) along with a better understanding of other impacts on the atmosphere.  Ultimately, regulation becomes a political decision but the the science is there for everyone to see.
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2511
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #527 on: August 22, 2019, 08:40:21 am »

Right at the moment there appears to be unprecedented forest burning in the Amazon. I'm glad this is not attributed to 'anthropogenic global warming'.


Me too. That would be illogical.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #528 on: August 22, 2019, 08:41:19 am »

Yes.
I do understand the analogy, but my view is that the doctors were perfectly right to recommend low fat food at the time because that's what their best in class data and understanding was telling them to do. It was a perfectly rationale choice.


No. If the 'best in class data' does not meet the rigorous standards of the methodology of science then the recommendation should always come with a 'maybe', or a 'possibly', just as many natural supplements do which are claimed to improve certain aspects of health.

Quote
How many time has science been right in their predictions on millions of topic of interest for our lifes. Are we going to throw away science because scientists are not always right?

Absolutely not. You should study how and why they got their predictions wrong and what was lacking in their methodology which led to the incorrect theory or prediction, then, perhaps, you can avoid repeating the mistake with other issues.

Quote
The possibility that science may not be right on climate change is real, but it's a probability game. And not taking any action on the ground that we are not 100% sure is IMHO too risky knowing that we think it would be too late to revert back once we are certain.

I don't think anyone is recommending we do nothing. The environment in many places is in quite a mess due to 'real' pollution. Focusing on reducing that marvelous gas, Carbon Dioxide, which is essential for all life and continues to increases plant growth up to levels of 1200 parts per million and beyond, seems irrational to me when there are so many obvious and serious problems which are not being adequately addressed due to lack of funding and the misconception that reducing CO2 levels will fix the problem.

We should ask ourselves, what is it precisely that we are alarmed about in a warming climate? More frequent heat waves? More frequent downpours of rain? This is what is claimed, with high confidence, to have occurred since 1950, by that great authority on climate, the IPCC. 

However, there is 'low confidence', due to lack of evidence, that floods, droughts and storms like hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones, have been increasing since the 1950's, globally, yet more people than ever are losing their lives and property, world-wide, due to floods and storms, because governments are not addressing the real issue, which is building more dams, contouring the land to prevent flash flooding, and insisting that all homes in areas subject to hurricanes are built to withstand the hurricane categories that have occurred in the past. In other words, the increased damage and loss of life is due to increased populations and increased urbanization, rather than global warming.

There are other major issues such as smog and 'real' pollution in the cities due to petrol and diesel-driven vehicles with inadequate emission controls, and coal-fired power stations with inadequate emission controls. However, the latest Ultra-Supercritical coal-fired power plants do have adequate emission controls (for the real pollutants), and I'm very much in favour of developing the electric vehicle which will potentially be much more efficient than the petrol vehicle, when the initial price of the vehicle matches the current price of petrol vehicles. At present, I believe the increased initial cost of an electric vehicle is greater than the total savings resulting from the lower running costs over the lifetime of the vehicle.

Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #529 on: August 22, 2019, 08:43:13 am »

Canada and America cut huge amounts of lumber over hundreds of years.  Yet today, I believe the forests are bigger than they were back then.    Wouldn;t the Amazon grow back?

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #530 on: August 22, 2019, 09:05:55 am »

No. If the 'best in class data' does not meet the rigorous standards of the methodology of science then the recommendation should always come with a 'maybe', or a 'possibly', just as many natural supplements do which are claimed to improve certain aspects of health.

Absolutely not. You should study how and why they got their predictions wrong and what was lacking in their methodology which led to the incorrect theory or prediction, then, perhaps, you can avoid repeating the mistake with other issues.

I don't think anyone is recommending we do nothing. The environment in many places is in quite a mess due to 'real' pollution. Focusing on reducing that marvelous gas, Carbon Dioxide, which is essential for all life and continues to increases plant growth up to levels of 1200 parts per million and beyond, seems irrational to me when there are so many obvious and serious problems which are not being adequately addressed due to lack of funding and the misconception that reducing CO2 levels will fix the problem.

We should ask ourselves, what is it precisely that we are alarmed about in a warming climate? More frequent heat waves? More frequent downpours of rain? This is what is claimed, with high confidence, to have occurred since 1950, by that great authority on climate, the IPCC. 

However, there is 'low confidence', due to lack of evidence, that floods, droughts and storms like hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones, have been increasing since the 1950's, globally, yet more people than ever are losing their lives and property, world-wide, due to floods and storms, because governments are not addressing the real issue, which is building more dams, contouring the land to prevent flash flooding, and insisting that all homes in areas subject to hurricanes are built to withstand the hurricane categories that have occurred in the past. In other words, the increased damage and loss of life is due to increased populations and increased urbanization, rather than global warming.

There are other major issues such as smog and 'real' pollution in the cities due to petrol and diesel-driven vehicles with inadequate emission controls, and coal-fired power stations with inadequate emission controls. However, the latest Ultra-Supercritical coal-fired power plants do have adequate emission controls (for the real pollutants), and I'm very much in favour of developing the electric vehicle which will potentially be much more efficient than the petrol vehicle, when the initial price of the vehicle matches the current price of petrol vehicles. At present, I believe the increased initial cost of an electric vehicle is greater than the total savings resulting from the lower running costs over the lifetime of the vehicle.


In 2018 we got more rain in New Jersey since 1895 when statistics were first reported.  It's about 40-45% higher than the 30 year normal.  We're tracking about the same higher amounts for the first 7 months this year.  My shrubs and plants seem to be richer and thicker, but that could be wishful thinking. :)   We did discover bagworms eating one of our evergreens.  I suppose insects are doing better as well.  Everybody seems to be enjoying the extra rainfall and heat.  8)
http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/nclimdiv/


The homes on the New Jersey shore that got wiped out during Hurricane Sandy, have been rebuilt, just on stilts.  People never learn.  They want to live by the beach and willl risk catastrophes. 

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #531 on: August 22, 2019, 09:15:21 am »

In 2018 we got more rain in New Jersey since 1895 when statistics were first reported.  It's about 40-45% higher than the 30 year normal.  We're tracking about the same higher amounts for the first 7 months this year.  My shrubs and plants seem to be richer and thicker, but that could be wishful thinking. :)   We did discover bagworms eating one of our evergreens.  I suppose insects are doing better as well. Everybody seems to be enjoying the extra rainfall and heat.  8)
http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/nclimdiv/


...and CO2.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #532 on: August 22, 2019, 09:43:11 am »

The real issue is that whether or not the bill is trillions, we're handing the bill to future generations.


Here ya go. Now how much will be debt for the future generation who will  have to live hand-to-mouth to pay down this debt?  How many cancer research studies, housing programs for the homeless, medical care programs for the sick, will have to be cancelled since there won't be any money left after we buy our electric cars and construct our offshore wind generators?  Of course no one wants to talk about that.  It's all about politics.  So we'll sacrifice our future on the altar of climate change so some septuagenarian socialist who won't have to deal with the future can get elected president by promising the world.  Humans are such fools.

"Bernie Sanders Unveils $16 Trillion ‘Green New Deal’ Plan"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/climate/bernie-sanders-climate-change.html

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #533 on: August 22, 2019, 10:06:14 am »

Canada and America cut huge amounts of lumber over hundreds of years.  Yet today, I believe the forests are bigger than they were back then.    Wouldn;t the Amazon grow back?
Forest preservation such as setting aside the Adirondack are significant.  A lot of the areas in NY state are no longer forested these days.  the same can be said about many other states where trees were cleared for farming purposes.  Some forest preservation is done by the government and some by commercial timber companies such as Weyerhauser.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #534 on: August 22, 2019, 10:07:20 am »

Ray, your post fails on several levels.  The example of high cholesterol and diet came from observational studies began decades ago.  It's a classic example of how scientific knowledge is used to improve the recommendations.

Alan,
I'd say it's a classic example of a flawed scientific procedure. Sure there were observations made, and observations of 'correlations' between saturated fat diets and high blood pressure, but correlation is not cause.

Quote
Your statement "all the applications of scientific research are tested" is misleading.  The level of testing is what matters.

Of course the level of testing is what matters. The level of testing and the degree of observation linking saturated fats to high blood pressure and heart attack risk, was not sufficient to justify the confident statements that were made at the time. That's my point, and it seems to me that a similar situation is occurring with regard to the claimed bad effects of rising CO2 levels.

Demonizing saturated fats is surprisingly analogous to demonizing CO2. In both cases, huge new industries developed as a consequence, which makes it more difficult for the truth to come out.

Quote
The statement comparing CO2 to arsenic is wrong.

Of course it's wrong. I got that analogy from Bart, who got it from the Skepticalscience website in response to claims that such small, trace percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere, seem unlikely to have any significant warming effect, or bad effect. 

Quote
CO2 cannot be compared to a vitamin based on definitional grounds.  Plants have an absolute requirement for 'large' amounts of CO2 so that they may synthesize sugars.  Vitamins are only required in very trace amounts and are not assembled into carbohydrates, proteins or lipids.

Analogies are always limited. Of course the processes of CO2 in the environment are different from the processes of vitamins in the human body. The analogy relates to the fact that both CO2 and vitamins are trace elements, and both are essential for life. If one considers the Earth as a living organism, then 0.044% CO2 in the atmosphere, which is only a small part by weight of the total Earth's surface or environment, is perhaps even more of a trace element that a vitamin in the human body. Perhaps someone would like to do the maths.  ;)

Quote
While reading about the history of science is interesting, it's not a substitute for understanding scientific principles.

True. That's why I also recommended reading about the methodology of science, which is a system that requires repeated experimentation under controlled conditions and the opportunity to set up experiments that could falsify a particular theory if in fact the theory is not correct. If this cannot be done in situations like quantifying the effect of CO2 rises on climate,  then little certainty can be achieved. That was my point.


Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #535 on: August 22, 2019, 10:52:45 am »

Forest preservation such as setting aside the Adirondack are significant.  A lot of the areas in NY state are no longer forested these days.  the same can be said about many other states where trees were cleared for farming purposes.  Some forest preservation is done by the government and some by commercial timber companies such as Weyerhauser.
So let me ask my question again.  If at some point after reducing vegetation in the Amazon, removal stops, would the Amazon regrow?  You seem to indicate that would happen like in NYS when logging was stopped.

Jim Pascoe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1131
    • http://www.jimpascoe.co.uk
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #536 on: August 22, 2019, 11:00:39 am »

I'm no expert on the Amazon - but many deciduous tress can take more than a hundred years to mature.  I don't think the Amazon rainforest would just regrow anytime soon.  Plus the number of species and biodiversity that is being lost to future generations may never be replaced.

Jim
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #537 on: August 22, 2019, 11:12:42 am »

I'm no expert on the Amazon - but many deciduous tress can take more than a hundred years to mature.  I don't think the Amazon rainforest would just regrow anytime soon.  Plus the number of species and biodiversity that is being lost to future generations may never be replaced.

Jim

But one thing is certain. It will regrow more rapidly in elevated levels of CO2.  ;)
Logged

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #538 on: August 22, 2019, 11:16:07 am »

  I don't think the Amazon rainforest would just regrow anytime soon.  Plus the number of species and biodiversity that is being lost to future generations may never be replaced.

Jim

Precisely.  It’s not just the trees.  Tropical rainforests apparently represent some of the planet’s most biodiverse regions. Even more diverse than Alan’s yard.
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #539 on: August 22, 2019, 11:37:02 am »

So let me ask my question again.  If at some point after reducing vegetation in the Amazon, removal stops, would the Amazon regrow? You seem to indicate that would happen like in NYS when logging was stopped.

Not under their current government. They just keep destroying and raping their land.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 54   Go Up