How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science

[Alan Klein]

There is a huge lobby for biomedical research in the US and the funding for the National Institutes of Health always seems to come out OK on a yearly basis.  There may be disagreements about how that money is being spent.  There was an article in the paper today that research on Sickle Cell Disease which affects 100K African Americans get very little funding relative to other diseases of a similar patient size that mainly affect white Americans (they used Cystic Fibrosis as the example).  Cancer research is still the largest funded area.
Very little private sector money is being spent on heart disease research.  We already have good cholesterol and blood pressure medications and anything new will be too incremental.  A lot of industry R&D is focused on cancer research.

I think we should take all that funding that goes to solar rebates and spend it on Deer Ticks and Lyme disease.  Over 300,000 Americans (reported) will get it this year.  It's traveling to other parts of the world as well.  Leaving aside photographers who like to get out in the woods to shoot nature, like me   kids and others are picking it up in their back yards and lawns.  It's a scourge.  And getting a lot worse, maybe even due to climate change.     Like the Chinese and me have said, warmer means greater biodiversity.  It's good for nature. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

Yes, I know, Alan. I was merely providing a link to some scientific research which expressed a similar view. The initial claim in the first post of this thread is that any skepticism about CO2-caused climate change, and any skepticism that it will most likely have disastrous consequences, is not scientifically justified because of an overwhelming consensus of certainty on the issue.

The problem is not just CO2 but greenhouse gasses in general.  CO2 is looked at first as it can be controlled through various technological approaches.  That CO2 is a green house gas is a scientific fact. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

I think we should take all that funding that goes to solar rebates and spend it on Deer Ticks and Lyme disease.  Over 300,000 Americans (reported) will get it this year.  It's traveling to other parts of the world as well.  Leaving aside photographers who like to get out in the woods to shoot nature, like me   kids and others are picking it up in their back yards and lawns.  It's a scourge.  And getting a lot worse, maybe even due to climate change.     Like the Chinese and me have said, warmer means greater biodiversity.  It's good for nature.

You have to deal with the animal lovers who don't want the culling of deer in the mid-Atlantic region.  We have a huge deer problem in our area (one jumped in front of my wife's car two days ago at mid-day).  there is a lot of vaccine research going on but no good candidate has emerged.

[Alan Klein]

Yes, I know, Alan. I was merely providing a link to some scientific research which expressed a similar view. The initial claim in the first post of this thread is that any skepticism about CO2-caused climate change, and any skepticism that it will most likely have disastrous consequences, is not scientifically justified because of an overwhelming consensus of certainty on the issue.

It doesn;t take science research to understand it, just common sense.  The deserts are dry and the polar regions are cold.  These two areas have the least biodiversity.  On the other hand, the Amazon region, with its constant rain and tropical temperatures, have the most biodiversity.  As the earth wams, and arable land and other natural land expands vegetation into the once former colder regions, the browsers will expand their populations to eat that vegetation and the carnivores will expand as well to eat those browsers.  Deer Ticks with Lyme will follow, unfortunately. But nature is more successful if we use standard measurements we have always used.  Warmth is good.  Of course, the warmists will continue to complain about the polar bear which is not reducing its population to any real degree in any case.  It will adapt anyway.  Meanwhile there's 100 other species that benefit a lot more by warmer climate.  Just common sense, something in short supply in much of the scientific community.

[faberryman]

I think we should take all that funding that goes to solar rebates and spend it on Deer Ticks and Lyme disease.

Writing your Congressman would be a good place to start. And I thought you advocated leaving those things to the market and keeping government out of it.

[Alan Klein]

You have to deal with the animal lovers who don't want the culling of deer in the mid-Atlantic region.  We have a huge deer problem in our area (one jumped in front of my wife's car two days ago at mid-day).  there is a lot of vaccine research going on but no good candidate has emerged.

There are dead deer all along our roads here in New Jersey.  YOu can see herds of them as they come out to feed right before sundown.  I try to drive with my brights on so I can see the reflection in their eyes before I actually see (or hit) one.  Hundreds of people die every year in car collisions with them.  And then there's the Lyme disease.   Of course, warming trends have supported higher populations of deer and deer ticks.  Also, the white footed mouse is a major vector participant in the disease.  They too populate more in warmer weather.  What usually happens though, is your get one extremely cold winter  And there just isn't enough food for all those extra deer.  And then the population collapses and 70% die in that one year.  Culling these herds through hunting actually save the remainder who could then find enough food to feed themselves.

[jeremyrh]

Duh, Jeremy. What makes you think "scientific credentials" have anything to do with it? Most politicians have plenty of credentials. "Climate scientists" are politicians with science credentials.

More spouting, Russ.  No evidence, just spouting.

[RSL]

More spouting, Russ.  No evidence, just spouting.

Perfectly fits this thread, though, doesn't it?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Here's some interesting recent research from the Chinese, ...

Please, post a link to the scientific paper, because your source (PSI) is not reliable (see attachment), and I cannot find the article in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Websites that peddle disinformation make millions of dollars in ads, new study finds
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/18/tech/advertising-disinformation-money-reliable-sources/index.html

New York (CNN Business) As the United States gears up for another presidential election, aware of the role online disinformation played in 2016, the business of publishing false or extremist content online remains a lucrative one.
At least $235 million in revenue is generated annually from ads running on extremist and disinformation websites, according to a new study from the Global Disinformation Index provided exclusively to CNN ahead of its September release. That means the people behind websites propagating hate or false information don't just have an ideological influence — they can also make big money from advertisers who often are unhappy or unaware that their brand name is being displayed alongside content they do not endorse.

Cheers,
Bart

[RSL]

Wow! What a shocking discovery. 

[Alan Klein]

Websites that peddle disinformation make millions of dollars in ads, new study finds
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/18/tech/advertising-disinformation-money-reliable-sources/index.html

Cheers,
Bart

You mean like the cable news websites that peddle misinformation as well?  CNN, MSNBC, FOX, PBS.  What about the old broadcast stations that peddle misinformation too like ABC, NBC and CBS? 

[Ray]

Please, post a link to the scientific paper, because your source (PSI) is not reliable (see attachment), and I cannot find the article in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Cheers,
Bart

Good point. I'm at least glad you attempted to find and read the research paper. However, there appears to be a slight (grammatical?) error in the PSI article. The research paper is soon to be published, but it hasn't been published yet. At least it is a very recent study, so it should impress you because you are so convinced that science gets closer to the truth with more research. 

From the following site:  https://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/is-global-cooling-on-the-way

"The South China Post reports that Chinese Academy of Science’s Dr. Wu Jing of the Key Laboratory of Cenozoic Geology and Environment is the lead author on a paper soon to be published by the online Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.
 
According to the Post’s story, the authors studied a part of Northern China for 12 years and concluded that winters in northern China may have been warming since 4,000 BC. Wu is quoted as saying, “Driving forces include the sun, the atmosphere, and its interaction with the ocean. We have detected no evidence of human influence.”

P.S. Having re-read the PSI article, I see they state "The paper, which has been accepted for publication by the online Journal of Geophysical Research...."

I imagine there will be a time lag between acceptance and publication as a few issues are rephrased or re-written, a few mistakes corrected, and a few points clarified.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Slobo - I'm curious -what do you imagine a "model" to be?

[Robert Roaldi]

You mean like the cable news websites that peddle misinformation as well?  CNN, MSNBC, FOX, PBS.  What about the old broadcast stations that peddle misinformation too like ABC, NBC and CBS?

What a bizarre statement.

[jeremyrh]

Deflection noted.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The problem is not just CO2 but greenhouse gasses in general...

I am all for getting rid of greenhouses. My grandma used to go every morning to a farmers market to buy fresh produce that came from the fields, not greenhouses. So, yeah, down with greenhouses!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Writing your Congressman would be a good place to start. And I thought you advocated leaving those things to the market and keeping government out of it.

Maybe because it’s the government, not the market, that started solar rebates in the first place?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Websites that peddle disinformation make millions of dollars in ads, new study finds

OMG, and I thought it all is just a Putin conspiracy!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Something for the “97% confidence” crowd: 🤣