Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 54   Go Down

Author Topic: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science  (Read 24866 times)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10684
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #440 on: August 19, 2019, 10:11:55 pm »

60 years ago, science assured us that fluoride in water was safe despite huge public complaints about being forced to drink fluoridated water.  Now, it turns out all those crazy, non-scientists were right.  IQ's drop in children especially boys, some of whom are probably posting right here now.  Hey wait.  That's me.  :)
"New study raises questions about how fluoride affects children's development"
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/19/health/fluoride-neurotoxin-canada-study/index.html

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13641
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #441 on: August 19, 2019, 10:28:46 pm »

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.

This is a wrong assumption.

Inability to model accurately a micro phenomemon doesn't imply inability to model a large scale one encompassing the micro level one.

We have tons of examples of this.

Just to give you one, until recently it was totally impossible to predict accurately the turbulent flow around some parts of the sail of a sailing boat, yet it was perfectly possible to simulate the macro behavior of the sail.

cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: August 19, 2019, 10:42:58 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13641
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #442 on: August 19, 2019, 10:30:51 pm »

60 years ago, science assured us that fluoride in water was safe despite huge public complaints about being forced to drink fluoridated water.  Now, it turns out all those crazy, non-scientists were right.  IQ's drop in children especially boys, some of whom are probably posting right here now.  Hey wait.  That's me.  :)
"New study raises questions about how fluoride affects children's development"
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/19/health/fluoride-neurotoxin-canada-study/index.html

Yes, science has been wrong in the past.

We should completely stop listening to the scientists. We should also expand this approach to all the other categories of people who have been wrong before: the intelligence community, politicians, industrialists,...

Because we have much better options and much more relevant sources of information we can trust... we have internet and in particular the LL forum with Russ, Alan and Slobodan. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: August 19, 2019, 10:48:10 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10684
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #443 on: August 19, 2019, 10:55:02 pm »

This is a wrong assumption.

Inability to model accurately a micro phenomemon doesn't imply inability to model a large scale one encompassing the micro level one.

We have tons of examples of this.

Just to give you one, until recently it was totally impossible to predict accurately the turbulent flow around some parts of the sail of a sailing boat, yet it was perfectly possible to simulate the macro behavior of the sail.

cheers,
Bernard

However, until it's tested, you don't know if this is true about Climate Change.  For that, you'll have to wait 50 years maybe longer.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10684
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #444 on: August 19, 2019, 11:03:37 pm »

Yes, science has been wrong in the past.

We should completely stop listening to the scientists. We should also expand this approach to all the other categories of people who have been wrong before: the intelligence community, politicians, industrialists,...

Because we have much better options and much more relevant sources of information we can trust... we have internet and in particular the LL forum with Russ, Alan and Slobodan. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard


I'm not anti-science, just realistic.  Many scientific studies and subsequent predictions have been wrong.  One of my pet peeves is food.  Frst, one thing is good for you and another isn't.  Then ten years later, science reverses itself.  It never ends. 

In fact just today, I saw a film at the hospital where I'm going for cardio exercises since my heart surgery.  The old theory was, "no pain, no gain" when it came to strength exercises.  Now the theory is to stop when you feel pain, you don't want to hurt yourself.  There's more of a go slow approach then it use to be.  Additionally, my cardiologist is telling me he doesn;t care how much red meat and fat I eat.  Just stay away from carbs, he says.  Watch how many people will post here that my cardiologist is crazy. 

So why should anyone trust anything.  You have to take things with a grain of salt, especially on such politically charged issues like global warming and climate change. 

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10684
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #445 on: August 19, 2019, 11:16:59 pm »

This new clean energy technology may make solar and wind as well as burning oil and coal obsolete. 
"Scientists extract hydrogen gas from oil and bitumen, giving potential pollution-free energy"
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-scientists-hydrogen-gas-oil-bitumen.html

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13641
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #446 on: August 19, 2019, 11:24:39 pm »

However, until it's tested, you don't know if this is true about Climate Change.  For that, you'll have to wait 50 years maybe longer.

By definition you will have to wait 50 years to know with 100% certainty what will happen in 50 years.

But managing uncertainty is what we do. In every single field of human activity.

And we trust best in class science to take decisions.

Cheers,
Bernard

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13641
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #447 on: August 19, 2019, 11:26:10 pm »

This new clean energy technology may make solar and wind as well as burning oil and coal obsolete. 
"Scientists extract hydrogen gas from oil and bitumen, giving potential pollution-free energy"
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-scientists-hydrogen-gas-oil-bitumen.html

Sounds interesting.

You can buy an hydrogen car for 70,000 US$ in Japan. I was sitting in one 24 hours ago.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: August 19, 2019, 11:30:19 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10684
    • Flicker photos
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #448 on: August 19, 2019, 11:33:21 pm »

Sounds interesting.

You can but an hydrogen car for 70,000 US$ in Japan. I was sitting in one 24 hours ago.

Cheers,
Bernard
NYC has some hydrogen buses on it's streets.  I think they're $2-3 million each.  While there's no pollution, I assume they still produce CO2 and other greenhouse gases and water vapor.  We'll see how real and cost effective it is.  Our commitment to wind and solar may have been too premature.  On the other hand, warmer is better.  I'm really conflicted. :)

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4023
    • advantica blog
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #449 on: August 19, 2019, 11:34:51 pm »

My cardiologist is telling me he doesn;t care how much red meat and fat I eat.  Just stay away from carbs, he says.  Watch how many people will post here that my cardiologist is crazy. 

Not necessarily crazy, just uninformed and not very competent. But he must have a good business acumen. It's far more profitable to be prescribing cholesterol reducing pills, blood thinners, beta blockers, and mood altering drugs than telling his patients to eat broccoli and black beans with rice. If he really wanted help his patients, he should read first a few books by Dr. Colin Campbell, Caldwell Esselstyn, Joel Fuhrman, John McDougall, Dean Ornish, Neal Barnard, Michael Greger, and others listed below. Even one Alan Goldhamer, DC. They all agree that red meat is worse than carbs.

https://nutriciously.com/vegan-doctors/

OTOH, you can keep eating Dr. Atkins diet, who practiced what he preached, got quite obese and predictably died of a heart attack.

Quote
Analysis of more than 2,440 men found that those with a high protein intake faced a 33 per cent increased risk of developing heart failure, where the organ is unable to pump sufficient blood and oxygen around the body.

Those who ate the most protein from animal sources had a 43 per cent higher risk of heart failure compare to those in the study who ate the least.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/05/29/atkins-diet-may-cause-heart-failure-major-new-protein-study/
« Last Edit: August 20, 2019, 12:13:24 am by LesPalenik »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13641
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #450 on: August 20, 2019, 12:13:46 am »

NYC has some hydrogen buses on it's streets.  I think they're $2-3 million each.  While there's no pollution, I assume they still produce CO2 and other greenhouse gases and water vapor.  We'll see how real and cost effective it is.  Our commitment to wind and solar may have been too premature.  On the other hand, warmer is better.  I'm really conflicted. :)

They only produce electricity and water. No pollutants, including CO2.

Solar and win would still have important roles to play.

Cheers,
Bernard

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10292
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #451 on: August 20, 2019, 01:22:37 am »

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.

Les,
I think the concept is that life in general tends to thrive in warmer climates. It's not rational to expect that a beneficial change in the climate, such as the current warming, will only have benefits for chosen, specific species, such as mosquitoes and rats, or weeds in the case of increased plant growth.

With increased warmth, increased precipitation, and increased CO2 levels, the whole biosystem thrives, including plants in particular which are the foundation of all animal life, as well as mosquitoes, spiders, snakes, buffaloes, tigers, lions, mice, rats and even humans.

Whilst mosquitoes are particularly annoying because they transfer diseases which happen to be harmful to us, or at least some of us, such as Malaria, they also serve as food for natural predators, such as birds, bats, dragonflies and spiders. Also, the larvae of mosquitoes, which live in water, provide food for fish and other wildlife.

The success of our species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, has resulted from our ability to adapt to the environment and take advantage of the opportunities that arise. I don't think anyone would want the climate to return to the last Ice Age when sea levels were 120 metres lower than today, yet those low sea levels were in some respects a boon for our distant ancestors because it allowed them to wander off in search of greener pastures, over land which is now covered in oceans.

The Aboriginals arrived in Australia about 60,000 years ago, yet they did not have boats. They walked into Australia. The early exodus of our distant ancestors from Africa could not have taken place without very low sea levels.

As sea levels gradually rose due to a warming climate, our early, primitive ancestors began to congregate in larger groups, creating  the beginning of 'civilization'.

So far, the archaeological evidence suggests that those first signs of an emerging civilization occurred about 11,500 years ago in Turkey, at a site known as Gobekli Tepe. It's a truly amazing discovery.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/gobekli-tepe
https://www.ranker.com/list/facts-about-gobekli-tepe-turkish-archaeological-site/stephanroget

The following article provides a quite detailed overview of the situation, but alarmists beware, this alternative view might cause great stress.  ;)
https://web.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

"If mankind had to choose between a warmer or a cooler climate, humans, most other animals and, after adjustment, most plants would be better off with higher temperatures. Not all animals or plants would prosper under these conditions; many are adapted to the current weather and might have difficulty making the transition. Society might wish to help natural systems and various species adapt to warmer temperatures (or cooler, should that occur). Whether the climate will warm is far from certain; that it will change is unquestionable. The weather has changed in the past and will no doubt continue to vary in the future. Human activity is likely to play only a small and uncertain role in climate change. The burning of fossil fuel may generate an enhanced greenhouse effect or the release into the atmosphere of particulates may cause cooling. It may also be simply hubris to believe that Homo Sapiens can affect temperatures, rainfall and winds.

As noted, not all regions or all peoples benefit from a shift to a warmer climate. Some locales may become too dry or too wet; others may become too warm. Certain areas may be subject to high pressure systems which block storms and rains. Other parts may experience the reverse. On the whole, though, mankind should benefit from an upward tick in the thermometer. Warmer weather means longer growing seasons, more rainfall overall, and fewer and less violent storms. The optimal way to deal with potential climate change is not to strive to prevent it, a useless activity in any case, but to promote growth and prosperity so that people will have the resources to deal with any shift."
« Last Edit: August 20, 2019, 01:31:34 am by Ray »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16967
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #452 on: August 20, 2019, 01:26:22 am »

23 pages and not a single alarmist has been able to answer a simple question: what can we do? Just whining about a “problem” with no solution offered. Well, ok, one solution is indeed offered: stop using plastic straws. Fine by me, I don’t use it anyway.

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10292
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #453 on: August 20, 2019, 01:48:53 am »

23 pages and not a single alarmist has been able to answer a simple question: what can we do? Just whining about a “problem” with no solution offered. Well, ok, one solution is indeed offered: stop using plastic straws. Fine by me, I don’t use it anyway.

Oh! Yes! They have offered a solution, Slobodan. Reduce CO2 emissions so we can get back to the wonderful days before the Industrial Revolution when the climate was so benign and everyone was safe from the effects of droughts, floods and hurricanes.  ;D
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16967
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #454 on: August 20, 2019, 02:04:01 am »

... Reduce CO2 emissions...

That’s a “solution” the same way as telling a hungry man he should eat something. The question is how (never mind “why,” for the sake of argument). So far we heard only idiotic solutions form a certified idiot, Karla Marx and her followers: stop cow farting, stop flying, stop having children, bankrupt oil companies, blah, blah, blah.

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10292
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #455 on: August 20, 2019, 02:10:59 am »

That’s a “solution” the same way as telling a hungry man he should eat something. The question is how (never mind “why,” for the sake of argument). So far we heard only idiotic solutions form a certified idiot, Karla Marx and her followers: stop cow farting, stop flying, stop having children, bankrupt oil companies, blah, blah, blah.

Of course it isn't a solution. :D I was being sarcastic, hoping that the non-inquisitive alarmists might begin to 'really think' about the issue, instead of blindly accepting a fabricated consensus.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16967
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #456 on: August 20, 2019, 02:14:00 am »

... It's also worth pointing out that one of the predictions accompanying global warming was for more frequent violent weather events...

Yes, a shocking increase in violent events:

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1948
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #457 on: August 20, 2019, 03:33:40 am »

I'm not anti-science, just realistic.  Many scientific studies and subsequent predictions have been wrong. 

So your solution is just to believe what's convenient for you. Makes sense.
Logged

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6314
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #458 on: August 20, 2019, 03:46:06 am »

Yes, a shocking increase in violent events:

Indeed... the reason we hear more about them today is because they affect a lot more people. Like flooding: people build houses below maximum flood levels, and then wonder why their house was dragged by the water. In the island of Madeira 2 or 3 years ago strong rain caused slope mass movements that destroyed houses - houses that should have never been built there in the first place. Like building houses near the sea and then complaining that winter storms are harmful...

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6314
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science
« Reply #459 on: August 20, 2019, 03:49:25 am »

23 pages and not a single alarmist has been able to answer a simple question: what can we do? Just whining about a “problem” with no solution offered. Well, ok, one solution is indeed offered: stop using plastic straws. Fine by me, I don’t use it anyway.

It's just arm waiving. I asked about 20 pages ago if we should revert to living in caves. It's like the NYMBY folks that are against hydrocarbon exploitation but show up in fossil fuel cars, go figure... I am all in favour of sustainable development, and making a rational transition from fossil fuel to less harmful sources of energy.
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 54   Go Up