How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science

[Peter McLennan]

So, if funds and grants are provided, invitations to symposiums offered, chances of being published and academically and professionally promoted, mostly to those that toe the party line, that is where the scientists would go. Just human.

Maybe your kind of human, but not the humans I know.

You've just denigrated all scientists, authors of much of what we now call "progress".  You know, smallpox eradication, GPS, the Internet, dune buggies on Mars, IBIS, drive-thru hamburgers...

Now, for some scientists working for Big Pharma, sure.  We have lots of evidence that those scientists do that as a matter of course.  And I'm sure that there are SOME scientists that align their work (and their results) in order to further their careers.  But to tar all of scientists with that same brush?  Again, bit of a stretch.  Pretty cynical, too, if you ask me.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... But to tar all of scientists with that same brush?  Again, bit of a stretch.  Pretty cynical, too, if you ask me.

To tar all of scientists as human? Some stretch, indeed.

[Peter McLennan]

To tar all of scientists as human? Some stretch, indeed.

Always with the gross rhetorical exaggeration.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Always with the gross rhetorical exaggeration.

As you did with:

... You've just denigrated all scientists...

[Alan Klein]

First, there is no 97%, but about a third. Second, it doesn't work in such direct, devious ways you suggest. It is more subtle. Scientists are human, and humans respond to incentives. So, if funds and grants are provided, invitations to symposiums offered, chances of being published and academically and professionally promoted, mostly to those that toe the party line, that is where the scientists would go. Just human.

+1

[Alan Klein]

You mean you don't believe Exxon?? Shame on you!!

Too bad those dozy climate folks put all their data, methods and programmes in the public arena so all someone has to do to prove them wrong is find the bugs, the fake data and the bad maths. That's happened, right?

Unlike hurricane and weather predictions and algorithms, there's no way to test climate change that's going to happen 50 years from now.  Even with the ability to see real-time data about hurricanes and current weather, those algorithms still aren't totally accurate.  In many cases, they're way off.  So how can we be so sure of predicting climate decades from now?  Anyone who has programed a computer knows there are bugs in the software.  It has to run a while to get them out.  Well, that's hard to do with climate since we're looking way into the future.  Yet, we've got the future all figured out. 

I don't think so.

[Peter McLennan]

As you did with:

... You've just denigrated all scientists...

Fair enough.  I'll edit it to say "scientists".

[faberryman]

Unlike hurricane and weather predictions and algorithms, there's no way to test climate change that's going to happen 50 years from now.  Even with the ability to see real-time data about hurricanes and current weather, those algorithms still aren't totally accurate.  In many cases, they're way off.  So how can we be so sure of predicting climate decades from now?  Anyone who has programed a computer knows there are bugs in the software.  It has to run a while to get them out.  Well, that's hard to do with climate since we're looking way into the future.  Yet, we've got the future all figured out.  I don't think so.

Just yesterday you were a "maybe" about anthropomorphic climate change. Did you talk yourself out of it last night.

[Alan Klein]

Just yesterday you were a "maybe" about anthropomorphic climate change. Did you talk yourself out of it last night.

I have two areas of questions.  The first is whether man is changing the climate and if so, by how much?  I think that's a possibility but I'm not sure by how much if so.  There seems to be a lot of prejudicial bias in the reporting.

The second is, if the climate is changing, what methods and resources should be used, if any, to ameliorate the change or will it actually be better to leave it alone and let it get warmer?

[faberryman]

I have two areas of questions.  The first is whether man is changing the climate and if so, by how much?  I think that's a possibility but I'm not sure by how much if so.  There seems to be a lot of prejudicial bias in the reporting.

The second is, if the climate is changing, what methods and resources should be used, if any, to ameliorate the change or will it actually be better to leave it alone and let it get warmer?

Reminds me of the paradox of Buridan's ass. At some point you have to make a decision, even if it is to do nothing. Are you waiting on more information? And when it comes, are you going to trust it? You don't seem like the trusting kind, so I can't think more information is going to be a help.

[RSL]

. . .what methods and resources should be used, if any, to ameliorate the change or will it actually be better to leave it alone and let it get warmer?

Alan, in spite of the crap that gets put out about it, there are no "methods or resources" that can ameliorate the change, and we're going to leave it alone, because that's all we can do other than running around like a chicken with its head cut off, yelling "the sky is falling." "The sky is falling."

[Alan Klein]

Reminds me of the paradox of Buridan's ass. At some point you have to make a decision, even if it is to do nothing. Are you waiting on more information? And when it comes, are you going to trust it? You don't seem like the trusting kind, so I can't think more information is going to be a help.

Russ just summed it up for me.  Since there doesn;t seem to be anyway we can change it, there's not much to do.  Since I feel that warming overall is better for us, let it get warmer.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Even with the ability to see real-time data about hurricanes and current weather, those algorithms still aren't totally accurate. 

We could always ignore storm warnings since they are never totally accurate.  Of course that is a flippant remark but the key point is that regardless of the margin of error, the ability to predict severe weather is far greater today than it was 20 or more years ago.  I remember the horrible 2012 derecho that cause much damage over a very wide swath of land.  We had warnings of the potential for huge power outages when the storm was in Ohio and beginning to amplify the power and spread.  We were one of the lucky areas where power was lost 'only' for 14 hours.  We had neighbors only a 1/4 mile away who were out of power for a week.

Advance notice of hurricanes permit more rational evacuation decisions.

It's also worth pointing out that one of the predictions accompanying global warming was for more frequent violent weather events.  That is certainly our experience as we have seen more thunderstorm activity and high wind events.

[Alan Klein]

We could always ignore storm warnings since they are never totally accurate.  Of course that is a flippant remark but the key point is that regardless of the margin of error, the ability to predict severe weather is far greater today than it was 20 or more years ago.  I remember the horrible 2012 derecho that cause much damage over a very wide swath of land.  We had warnings of the potential for huge power outages when the storm was in Ohio and beginning to amplify the power and spread.  We were one of the lucky areas where power was lost 'only' for 14 hours.  We had neighbors only a 1/4 mile away who were out of power for a week.

Advance notice of hurricanes permit more rational evacuation decisions.

It's also worth pointing out that one of the predictions accompanying global warming was for more frequent violent weather events.  That is certainly our experience as we have seen more thunderstorm activity and high wind events.

Again you missed my point totally.  It had nothing to do with predicting hurricanes.  The point was that climate change prediction can't be even as accurate as hurricane prediction because you'd have to wait 50 to test it. 

[faberryman]

Russ just summed it up for me.  Since there doesn;t seem to be anyway we can change it, there's not much to do.  Since I feel that warming overall is better for us, let it get warmer.

At least you acknowledge that it is getting warmer. That's at least something.

[Peter McLennan]

Russ just summed it up for me.  Since there doesn;t seem to be anyway we can change it, there's not much to do. 

Right. We'll just sit back and watch.

Just like we did with acid rain.  And the ozone hole.  And Los Angles smog. And London fogs. And Thalidomide. And all the other mistakes we made, and learned from.

We'll just sit back and watch. Even though it's our kids and grand kids who will suffer the most.  WTF, we'll be gone.

[Alan Klein]

Right. We'll just sit back and watch.

Just like we did with acid rain.  And the ozone hole.  And Los Angles smog. And London fogs. And Thalidomide. And all the other mistakes we made, and learned from.

We'll just sit back and watch. Even though it's our kids and grand kids who will suffer the most.  WTF, we'll be gone.

But I said I think warming will be good for the earth and its inhabitants. So it's you who want to hurt our grandchildren.

[Peter McLennan]

But I said I think warming will be good for the earth and its inhabitants. So it's you who want to hurt our grandchildren.

Hopefully, that's another one of your jokes.

No smilie, though, so it's just an assumption on my part.

[LesPalenik]

Since I feel that warming overall is better for us, let it get warmer.

As stated here a few times before, the warming is also better for mosquitoes, ticks, pine beetles, japanese beetles, wasps, and other not so beneficial insects. And that means that humans will be exposed also to more Deet, pesticides and other similar concoctions.

Arctic mosquito swarms contain hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of insects. That's enough to harass a pregnant caribou until she stops worrying about food. And it's enough to kill caribou calves outright. They inundate entire herds and the caribou's only defense is to flee, leading to decreased eating and further stress on the population.

https://www.ecowatch.com/arctic-warming-produces-mosquito-swarms-large-enough-to-kill-baby-cari-1882096019.html

Alarming is also the prolific reproduction of rodents in hot weather. Did you know that mice can become pregnant just 2 days after giving birth and can reproduce up to ten times a year?

With ample shelter and food sources, mice and rodents are allowed to breed and multiply relatively unchecked throughout the summer. They have plenty of space to live outdoors, and with temperatures warm enough rodents feel safe enough to procreate as much as possible. During summer months mice also typically feed off of crops and live in fields. Sometimes, they build shelters underground close to food sources. Mice can reproduce multiple times a year, sometimes as much as 10 times a year. Interestingly, mice can even become pregnant after as little as two days after giving birth. This is why when they are left unchecked during the summer months, they can quickly build up large numbers.

https://www.rovepestcontrol.com/what-do-mice-do-in-the-summer/

[Alan Klein]

As stated here a few times before, the warming is also better for mosquitoes, ticks, pine beetles, japanese beetles, wasps, and other not so beneficial insects. And that means that humans will be exposed also to more Deet, pesticides and other similar concoctions.

https://www.ecowatch.com/arctic-warming-produces-mosquito-swarms-large-enough-to-kill-baby-cari-1882096019.html

Alarming is also the prolific reproduction of rodents in hot weather. Did you know that mice can become pregnant just 2 days after giving birth and can reproduce up to ten times a year?

https://www.rovepestcontrol.com/what-do-mice-do-in-the-summer/

So mosquitoes will move into areas that are getting warmer where there were no mosquitoes before and where there were no caribou either for them to feed on.     All I see is that both species will grow in population and territory, two defining criteria of successful species.  Also, human population will expand into those areas as well to be bothered by mosquitoes yet have caribou to live off of. More successful humans.  More bears, more trees, more birds, more snakes, more frogs, more fish, more of everything.  How's that bad.  That's how nature works.   All good stuff.  Warming is good.