How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science

[LesPalenik]

Why do we think that 2 degrees hotter is not the norm?  Or better?  Just because man in his infinitesimally brief existence where there was history and memory might not remember the higher or lower mean temperatures, doesn't mean that the extra degrees were not the norm in earth's history nor were a negative to man and other species' existences.  It's just that we're not use to it so we assume what was is better than what is or might be. 

2 degrees warmer may be just the difference which kills you.
I remember swimming once at Chena Hot Spring outdoor pool in Alaska, where they keep the water temperature at 106F. That is about the maximum temperature I would get in. On my second day there, their cold water pump malfunctioned and the water temperature got a few degrees higher. I tried to get in, but all my body protested. Actually, I got in just ankle deep and lasted there for a few minutes thinking about all those boiled frogs before I gave up and walked out.

[Alan Klein]

Are you suggesting that the scientific community has not honestly examined the pros and cons, and are making remedial recommendations willy-nilly?

Yes.  They acknowledge there's no way to make much of a dent in  climate change.  So why are they then spending huge sums like the have in Germany to no avail other than costing more money for electricity with nothing spent for other things.   Also, it's often the green energy companies' political funding and drive that sets the agenda where the money is spent.  So it's going down a rathole.   

Also, we're not spending enough time and effort examining the pros of warming.  It's like the news.  Death and destruction sells.  No one cares when good things are happening.  So the good stuff doesn;t get the play.  Who do you think gets the funding?  The researcher who wants to study how to stop lung cancer?  Or the researcher who wants to study why some people feel better all the time?  Who's going to fund the researcher who wants to study the good effects of global warming?  They'll throw the guy out of the funding office.  So they all want to study and show just how bad it is.  Otherwise the researchers can't make a living. 

[Alan Klein]

2 degrees warmer may be just the difference which kills you.
I remember swimming once at Chena Hot Spring outdoor pool in Alaska, where they keep the water temperature at 106F. That is about the maximum temperature I would get in. On my second day there, their cold water pump malfunctioned and the water temperature got a few degrees higher. I tried to get in, but all my body protested. Actually, I got in just ankle deep and lasted there for a few minutes thinking about all those boiled frogs before I gave up and walked out.

I like frogs at 106F, not my body. 

[LesPalenik]

The Chena hot springs discharge at temperatures around 165 °F (74 °C); however, the source temperature in the ground is around 250 °F (121 °C).
Hopefully, they won't start drilling and fracking in that area, that could unleash a lot of boiling water.

[Alan Klein]

The Chena hot springs discharge at temperatures around 165 °F (74 °C); however, the source temperature in the ground is around 250 °F (121 °C).
Hopefully, they won't start drilling and fracking in that area, that could unleash a lot of boiling water.

Do they use it to generate electricity?  They should, if not.  Also to boil frogs. 

[RSL]

Was there at the time a 97% level of agreement in the global scientific community. . .

Cheers,
Bernard

Yes. Copernicus, the "denier" had at least a 97% level of agreement that he was wrong. Oh, and if you're talking about global cooling, damn right. When I was at University of Michigan there even was a professor who was learning to build an igloo. He was kidding, of course, but the joke fit right in with the "scientific consensus" of the time. Fashions change. Bet you don't even remember flairs.

[Alan Klein]

Yes. Copernicus, the "denier" had at least a 97% level of agreement that he was wrong.

Copernicus is lucky they didn't drop him in the Chena Hot Springs. 

[faberryman]

Are you suggesting that the scientific community has not honestly examined the pros and cons, and are making remedial recommendations willy-nilly?

Yes.

If the climate change scientists are all dishonest, who should do the research and recommend solutions?

[Alan Klein]

If the climate change scientists are all dishonest, who should do the research and recommend solutions?

If the government is going to spend our tax money on research, they should spend more than they are on the effects of climate change - the good as well as the bad.  And then the government should publish these things more widely so the public is more informed about all the facts, not just the cherry picked negatives. Unfortunately, politicians, researchers, green energy companies, the media, nature programs, nature program producers, etc. are not interested in knowing the full truth.  It's hard to make money off of good news. 

[LesPalenik]

Copernicus is lucky they didn't drop him in the Chena Hot Springs.

Who knows what was the hot spring temperature in his time. The danger comes with the sudden temperature rise. The water temperatures can change suddenly and quite substantially.

In some hot springs, the water is heated when surface water seeps into fissures hundreds of feet below, making contact with super-heated magma and then percolating to the surface. Water temperatures drop when mineral deposits underground block ground water from fractures leading to the magma. But when new fractures open or mineral deposits loosen due to seismic activity, water temperatures can shoot up dramatically in seconds.

Such is the case at a popular swimming hole along Hot Creek near Mammoth Mountain, a dormant volcano in the Eastern Sierra, about 310 miles north of Los Angeles. Hot Creek and several hot springs pools near the mountain draw many bathers each year. But federal parks officials have fenced off Hot Creek and banned swimming there because of the risk of extreme temperature changes. More than a dozen people have been killed or scalded in the creek since the 1960s, according to signs posted around the creek.

You wouldn't want to have a fracking company operating nearby.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-dec-29-he-springsside29-story.html

[Alan Klein]

Who knows what was the hot spring temperature in his time. The danger comes with the sudden temperature rise. The water temperatures can change suddenly and quite substantially.
...

Copernicus would have been the perfect person to stick in those Hot Springs.  We could count on him to give us the truth about what was happening with the temperature.  Too bad he isn't alive today to accurately report on Global Warming. 

By the way, I betcha there aren't any frogs there in the water. 

[BernardLanguillier]

Yes. Copernicus, the "denier" had at least a 97% level of agreement that he was wrong. Oh, and if you're talking about global cooling, damn right. When I was at University of Michigan there even was a professor who was learning to build an igloo. He was kidding, of course, but the joke fit right in with the "scientific consensus" of the time. Fashions change. Bet you don't even remember flairs.

Wikipedia disagrees with you... commenting about these articles about global cooling that "these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

So we are still without a single actual example of these cases where the scientific community would have been awfully wrong as a whole.

But you know... the point is that if they had been dominantly of the opinion that global cooling was coming, and had been wrong about it, it would still have been the right thing to do at the time to follow their recommendations. Just like you were right to follow the intel that told you to do bomb whatever target. Even if that intel was wrong.

But perhaps is it just my doer way of thinking. I do understand that taking action without absolutely certain data is not easy for everyone.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

Wikipedia disagrees with you... commenting about these articles about global cooling that "these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Cheers,
Bernard

All your Wikipedia article proves then is that the media and popular culture presented something very different than what "science" was saying back then.  So you can;t believe everything you read.  That's the point.  There's no way for the average layman to cull truth from fantasy.  WHy should they believe science?  Why should they believe popular culture?  How do average people separate the wheat from the chaff?  It comes down to people believe what they want to believe.  Does Canon make a better camera?  Or does Nikon? 

As an aside, I lived through that period.  I remember everyone talking about another ice age and cooling.  No one talked about warming then.  So I think the writers of the Wiki article are playing with the truth a little because they're in the camp of global warming. 

[BernardLanguillier]

All your Wikipedia article proves then is that the media and popular culture presented something very different than what "science" was saying back then.  So you can;t believe everything you read.  That's the point.  There's no way for the average layman to cull truth from fantasy.  WHy should they believe science?  Why should they believe popular culture?  How do average people separate the wheat from the chaff?  It comes down to people believe what they want to believe.  Does Canon make a better camera?  Or does Nikon? 

As an aside, I lived through that period.  I remember everyone talking about another ice age and cooling.  No one talked about warming then.  So I think the writers of the Wiki article are playing with the truth a little because they're in the camp of global warming.

Yes, of course. It's all part of the global conspiracy.

Everything is the same, or not... history may be true or not, the theory of evolution may be true or not... all opinions have the same value...  especially if it validates your view on things...

Except that this isn't how the world works. I suggest you spend some time reading work from the great American philosopher Ken Wilber if you haven't done so. He demonstrates pretty convincingly that hierarchy is part of the essential fabric of the world. And that applies to scientific theories built by the leading scientists being better than those proposed by people without references.

You may also be interested in the Ted speech about what should be the criteria for a good theory: https://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_a_new_way_to_explain_explanation/transcript?language=en

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... these articles about global cooling that "these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time"...

So, the media and politicians were exaggerating and misinterpreting the science then? Sounds familiar, no?

As for evolution... that theory doesn't require us to slaughter 1 billion cows* (hmmm... what would Indians say about that?), stop flying, kill the fossil fuel industry and all its byproducts (besides gasoline), etc.

* Then again, that would be one hell of a barbecue party - 4th of July all year long

[BernardLanguillier]

So, the media and politicians were exaggerating and misinterpreting the science then? Sounds familiar, no?

As for evolution... that theory doesn't require us to slaughter 1 billion cows* (hmmm... what would Indians say about that?), stop flying, kill the fossil fuel industry and all its byproducts (besides gasoline), etc.

* Then again, that would be one hell of a barbecue party - 4th of July all year long

There you go... why not just say "I understand that man is causing global warming, but I don't care. I want to keep driving my SUV, flying my planes and burn fuel".

This would save us all a lot of time.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

There you go... why not just say "I understand that man is causing global warming, but I don't care. I want to keep driving my SUV, flying my planes and burn fuel".

The latter you got right.

[LesPalenik]

In reality, Slobodan doesn't inflict much damage to the Earth when it comes to transportation. He is not a frequent flyer and he drives a comfortable and safe sedan with great mileage.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... He is not a frequent flyer...

I wish I am... first class preferably

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

There you go... why not just say "I understand that man is causing global warming, but I don't care. I want to keep driving my SUV, flying my planes and burn fuel".

The latter you got right.

At any price?

And, I'm just wondering, what is it that you do not understand about man causing global warming?
Is it based on media attention, or on scientific literature, or is it a selfish denial because you don't like the conclusions, or...?

Cheers,
Bart