• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An Excellent Send-Up of Confirmation Bias Among the AGW Advocates

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,453
Reaction score
27,974
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
:roll:

Hansen was asked "what would happen if CO2 doubled in the next 40 years?" Surprise! CO2 hasn't doubled in that time.

And of course, your own chart proves you wrong. We've seen multiple declines, over and over, while overall temperatures keep going up. We can easily see that the average anomalies before 1997 were all negative, while the anomalies after 1997 were almost all positive. And that May 2018 anomaly? Yeah, that's still higher than most months.

Thanks for displaying, yet again, the utter bankruptcy of the denialist position.
Hansen can't have it both ways. He named a date with the clear implication his CO2 condition was likely to be met. His poor estimate on the condition cannot be an excuse for his silly prediction of the date.

Anomalies are headed down and will be back in negative territory before long. With the sun approaching minimum, we're looking at several years, perhaps decades of cooling.

Thanks anyway, Captain Obvious.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,453
Reaction score
27,974
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So what has caused probably the greatest fraud in human history to fool all the world's countries, scientists, NASA, NOAA, etc.? Who will lead us out of this wilderness?
I'm not aware of any fraud. The data are the data.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
73,499
Reaction score
31,924
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My present thinking is that far more than 20 million deaths would not happen next year if we stopped using food as fuel this year.

The 20 million is a conservative assesment.

Which of these do you disagree with;

1, That 40%+ of US grain goes into biofuel.
Provide evidence of this claim.

The US is ~4% of the world's population. The US is not the world.
Less than ten percent of crop calories go to biofuel.

2, That a similar amount of EU food is diverted into biodiesel. Also in the EU outside grain is imported to be converted into fuel. The largest inporter of grain in the UK uses Russian food for this purpose.
Wrong.

3, That this cause the price of basic food to rise a lot.
Vague and unsubstantiated.

4, That if the practice was to stop the price of food would drop a lot. In the order of halving.
\
Unsubstantiated.

5, That life expectancy for those who live on less than $2.50 per day is somewhere in the 40's. And that is almost half the world's population. 3+billion people.
Wrong. Literally one nation on the planet is "in the 40s." (49.81.) You've exaggerated the population "in the 40s" by about two hundred times.

6, That life expectancy for those on $5 a day is in the 60's. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_curve#/media/File:PrestonCurve2005.JPG
Once again you dramatically inflate the number of people in this situation.
https://datamarket.com/data/set/1x3...eth&map=world&classifier=natural&numclasses=5

7, That the removal of this artifially created drian on the pockets of the poor of the world would result in a very rapid advance of the economy of the world's poor. This would make the numbers for the next year even better.
Unsubstantiated. Without biofuel subsidies the price of that grain would increase. The market might not bear it as food in the first place.

or is looking at actual numbers not something you like to do?
You're inventing numbers because you are a liar.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
13,463
Reaction score
3,376
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm not aware of any fraud. The data are the data.
I thought the data supported the notion of human activity affecting the climate. That's why the Paris agreement, I presumed.
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,785
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Be sure to read all the way to the end.


The Neurobiology of Climate Change Denial

Posted on 06 Jun 18 by JOHN RIDGWAY 13 Comments
Much work has already been undertaken to establish the cognitive foundation for the irrationality of climate change denial. Of particular note are the studies undertaken by Lewandowsky, Kahneman, Shapiro and O’Conner, identifying the many cognitive biases that invalidate arguments put forward by those who profess scepticism in the face of the scientific evidence. However, it … Continue reading

. . . Of particular interest is a recent paper1,“The neurobiology of climate change denial”, by Dr Rodriguez Azuela et al, of the Positano Behavioural and Cognitive Research Unit. By revealing significant neural pathologies, the paper promises to throw new light on the puzzling irrationality that appears so intransigent to those who would strive to engage the public’s support for climate change mitigation. In Dr Azuela’s own words:
“We were interested to see how the pattern of neural activity differed between climate change deniers and those who accept the scientific consensus. In particular, we looked for differences whilst they considered the evidence put forward for anthropogenic climate change. For this purpose, subjects who had declared varying degrees of scepticism were confronted with images totemic of climate change evidence and were asked to offer their personal assessment whilst undergoing functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI).”. . . .

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Alan Kendall's post early in the comments section was hilarious! I'm still laughing, because I didn't have a problem understanding what he was saying even though I wasn't aware that I knew the "divine language of Goethe!" :mrgreen: :thumbs:
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,453
Reaction score
27,974
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I thought the data supported the notion of human activity affecting the climate. That's why the Paris agreement, I presumed.
The Paris agreement proceeds from an assumption that CO2 is the primary driver of rising temperatures. The temperatures are the data; the assumption is not.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,453
Reaction score
27,974
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Alan Kendall's post early in the comments section was hilarious! I'm still laughing, because I didn't have a problem understanding what he was saying even though I wasn't aware that I knew the "divine language of Goethe!" :mrgreen: :thumbs:
Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

Sehr gut!
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
13,463
Reaction score
3,376
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Paris agreement proceeds from an assumption that CO2 is the primary driver of rising temperatures. The temperatures are the data; the assumption is not.
So, fight the power. Identify all these evil scientists, cut funding for NASA and other government agencies who support this nonsense. Go to the next international climate conference and drive out all these false assumptions.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,453
Reaction score
27,974
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,453
Reaction score
27,974
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So why is this not brought to Congress, to the UN, to the next conference on the climate?
The appropriate arena in which to proceed is within the community of scientists. It has happened before. Please see Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The revolution is under way.

[h=2]Finally! The missing link between exploding stars, clouds and climate on Earth[/h]Blog topic:
astronomy, cosmic rays, global warming, personal research, weather & climate


Our new results published today in nature communications provide the last piece of a long studied puzzle. We finally found the actual physical mechanism linking between atmospheric ionization and the formation of cloud condensation nuclei. Thus, we now understand the complete physical picture linking solar activity and our galactic environment (which govern the flux of cosmic rays ionizing the atmosphere) to climate here on Earth through changes in the cloud characteristics.


 
Last edited:

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
15,608
Reaction score
3,535
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Of course not... All the nations of the world have been taken in... Clever Chinese...
It's not the Chineese.

It is the doomseekers amongst us.

Given you cannot explain what the trouble is but you are 100% behiond the idea that there is this problem don't you think you should examine your motivations?
 

Tim the plumber

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
15,608
Reaction score
3,535
Location
Sheffield
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Provide evidence of this claim.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/
Today’s corn crop is mainly used for biofuels (roughly 40 percent of U.S. corn is used for ethanol)
The US is ~4% of the world's population. The US is not the world.
Less than ten percent of crop calories go to biofuel.
[EU biodiesel production]
Between August last year and January, 852,000 tonnes of biodiesel - around four times the capacity of a large EU plant - worth $617 million, were exported from Argentina to the bloc, customs data showed. Earlier in 2017, nearly all exports were heading to the United States.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-e...-to-stem-biodiesel-import-flood-idUKKCN1GJ2I9
The EU and USA are using all the world's food suppliers to ramp up the price of food.

Nope.

3, That this cause the price of basic food to rise a lot.
Vague and unsubstantiated.
Utterly obvious unless you learnt your economics from Marx.
\

4, That if the practice was to stop the price of food would drop a lot. In the order of halving.
Unsubstantiated.
Do I need to substanciate that it is daytime?

[Life expectancy]

Wrong. Literally one nation on the planet is "in the 40s." (49.81.) You've exaggerated the population "in the 40s" by about two hundred times.
Poverty Facts and Stats ? Global Issues
Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.
Then you will need to read a graph. It might be hard due to you having to think about things you don't want to;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_curve#/media/File:PrestonCurve2005.JPG

There are rich in every nation. They cause the life expectancy numbers to increase particualrly as they are easy to count in a census.

Once again you dramatically inflate the number of people in this situation.
https://datamarket.com/data/set/1x3...eth&map=world&classifier=natural&numclasses=5
www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/docs/2010/chapter2.pdf

The UN numbers are of about 3 billion people on less than $2.50 a day but then this particualr data is from 2005 so maybe all those poor people are driving cars now.

7, That the removal of this artifially created drian on the pockets of the poor of the world would result in a very rapid advance of the economy of the world's poor. This would make the numbers for the next year even better.
Unsubstantiated. Without biofuel subsidies the price of that grain would increase. The market might not bear it as food in the first place.
You will willingly blind yourself to the utterly obvious.

or is looking at actual numbers not something you like to do?
You're inventing numbers because you are a liar.
You are brainless in the face of the utterly obvious facts that show your chosen religion to be the biggest mass murder machine since the Mongol invaisions.
 
Last edited:

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
16,821
Reaction score
10,407
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Hansen can't have it both ways. He named a date with the clear implication his CO2 condition was likely to be met. His poor estimate on the condition cannot be an excuse for his silly prediction of the date.
Hansen never said "CO2 will double by 2020." The question he was asked, and what he answered, is "how bad would it be if CO2 doubled by 2028?"


Anomalies are headed down and will be back in negative territory before long. With the sun approaching minimum, we're looking at several years, perhaps decades of cooling.
lol

Again, look at your own chart. The trend is up. The numbers are up. We've seen brief periods of cooling, followed by temperatures going back up and staying up. 7 of the 10 hottest years on record were in the past decade -- all of this happening whilst your denialist heroes predicted a period of cooling. And of course, the idea that "one year is a trend" is laughable.

Yet again, these kinds of desperate and deliberate misinterpretation is yet another indicator of the paucity of the denier's position.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,453
Reaction score
27,974
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hansen never said "CO2 will double by 2020." The question he was asked, and what he answered, is "how bad would it be if CO2 doubled by 2028?"



lol

Again, look at your own chart. The trend is up. The numbers are up. We've seen brief periods of cooling, followed by temperatures going back up and staying up. 7 of the 10 hottest years on record were in the past decade -- all of this happening whilst your denialist heroes predicted a period of cooling. And of course, the idea that "one year is a trend" is laughable.

Yet again, these kinds of desperate and deliberate misinterpretation is yet another indicator of the paucity of the denier's position.
Tsk tsk. The year 2020 is your contribution to the discussion, not mine. Nonetheless, Hansen took the bait and answered. The target date is 2028, and Hansen owns it.

The recent decades of solar-powered warming are coming to an end, and the cooling which has now set in will expose the attribution of warming to CO2 for the wrong turn it is.

Back to you, Captain Obvious.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
13,463
Reaction score
3,376
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The appropriate arena in which to proceed is within the community of scientists. It has happened before. Please see Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The revolution is under way.

[h=2]Finally! The missing link between exploding stars, clouds and climate on Earth[/h]Blog topic:
astronomy, cosmic rays, global warming, personal research, weather & climate


Our new results published today in nature communications provide the last piece of a long studied puzzle. We finally found the actual physical mechanism linking between atmospheric ionization and the formation of cloud condensation nuclei. Thus, we now understand the complete physical picture linking solar activity and our galactic environment (which govern the flux of cosmic rays ionizing the atmosphere) to climate here on Earth through changes in the cloud characteristics.


So what is the state of play internationally? Have countries accepted the analysis and/or abandoned their efforts to deal with the problem? The Paris accords are voluntary, so they could quietly do so. My assumption that much of what is being done is in our best interest, or are we back to "drill, baby, drill"?
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
93,453
Reaction score
27,974
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So what is the state of play internationally? Have countries accepted the analysis and/or abandoned their efforts to deal with the problem? The Paris accords are voluntary, so they could quietly do so. My assumption that much of what is being done is in our best interest, or are we back to "drill, baby, drill"?
The U.S. is one of the few countries on track to meet Paris goals, despite abandoning the agreement. Germany, on the other hand, has had to push their targets farther into the future. It really doesn't matter much because even if every country complied in full the temperature difference in 2100 would be negligible.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,834
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Be sure to read all the way to the end.


The Neurobiology of Climate Change Denial

Posted on 06 Jun 18 by JOHN RIDGWAY 13 Comments
Much work has already been undertaken to establish the cognitive foundation for the irrationality of climate change denial. Of particular note are the studies undertaken by Lewandowsky, Kahneman, Shapiro and O’Conner, identifying the many cognitive biases that invalidate arguments put forward by those who profess scepticism in the face of the scientific evidence. However, it … Continue reading

. . . Of particular interest is a recent paper1,“The neurobiology of climate change denial”, by Dr Rodriguez Azuela et al, of the Positano Behavioural and Cognitive Research Unit. By revealing significant neural pathologies, the paper promises to throw new light on the puzzling irrationality that appears so intransigent to those who would strive to engage the public’s support for climate change mitigation. In Dr Azuela’s own words:
“We were interested to see how the pattern of neural activity differed between climate change deniers and those who accept the scientific consensus. In particular, we looked for differences whilst they considered the evidence put forward for anthropogenic climate change. For this purpose, subjects who had declared varying degrees of scepticism were confronted with images totemic of climate change evidence and were asked to offer their personal assessment whilst undergoing functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI).”. . . .

Too funny. The first clue should have been the site you found this on. While not deniers, they certainly don't promote the AGW religion in any way. But brilliantly done. Really looks authentic if you aren't particular about what is actually science and what is well-done fiction. :)
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
13,463
Reaction score
3,376
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's not the Chineese.

It is the doomseekers amongst us.

Given you cannot explain what the trouble is but you are 100% behiond the idea that there is this problem don't you think you should examine your motivations?
My presumption is that starting up hundreds of millions of cars daily, burning coal, etc, have consequences. Scientists seem to agree, and have published articles documenting how. When the evidence changes I assume different articles and outlets will sing a different tune. Then we change policy. I will buy a '59 Caddy. Til then, I am glad cars will get higher mileage, that we plan to use less coal, etc.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,834
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
So what is the state of play internationally? Have countries accepted the analysis and/or abandoned their efforts to deal with the problem? The Paris accords are voluntary, so they could quietly do so. My assumption that much of what is being done is in our best interest, or are we back to "drill, baby, drill"?
Whether reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions will conclusively affect naturally occurring climate change is actually unknown. So far all the doomsday prophecies of the pro-AGW group have not come to pass, and that fuels skepticism that their prophecies for the future are any more reliable.

But even if altering/reducing/eliminating human generated CO2 etc. will have an affect on the climate, it seems absolutely ludicrous to push the 1 billion people on Earth who have already taken measures to go as green as reasonably possible to go even greener as a solution while ignoring the 6.5 billion people on Earth who are not doing that.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
13,463
Reaction score
3,376
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The U.S. is one of the few countries on track to meet Paris goals, despite abandoning the agreement. Germany, on the other hand, has had to push their targets farther into the future. It really doesn't matter much because even if every country complied in full the temperature difference in 2100 would be negligible.
You leave aside the question, should we not increase mileage standards, push for cleaner coal (if that is possible), etc.? What do you suggest we do?
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
13,463
Reaction score
3,376
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Whether reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions will conclusively affect naturally occurring climate change is actually unknown. So far all the doomsday prophecies of the pro-AGW group have not come to pass, and that fuels skepticism that their prophecies for the future are any more reliable.

But even if altering/reducing/eliminating human generated CO2 etc. will have an affect on the climate, it seems absolutely ludicrous to push the 1 billion people on Earth who have already taken measures to go as green as reasonably possible to go even greener as a solution while ignoring the 6.5 billion people on Earth who are not doing that.
Yesterday's paper had three stories about warming, flooding, et al. We each do what we can. Let's spread the word, provide appropriate aid and technology to those countries who are not up to speed.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,834
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
You leave aside the question, should we not increase mileage standards, push for cleaner coal (if that is possible), etc.? What do you suggest we do?
I'm not Jack, but if I may chime in here. . .

Pushing mileage standards to the detriment of cargo capacity and efficiency is just silly. Yes, the big heavy cars of my younger years were gas guzzlers--12 to 15 mpg was pretty good then--but we could pile six or seven folks--sometimes more--into them to go places and we frequently did. Taking two cars getting 30 mpg to transport the same number of people to a destination is not helpful, most especially when you factor in all the other components of energy consumption that is necessary to build, maintain, and operate a vehicle and the infrastructure to accommodate it.

If I drive a gas-guzzling Hummer 1 mile to work every day, I am not going to impact the environment more than your 30-mile commute in your hybrid.

As for cleaner coal, the USA is making strides to accomplishing that and the effort will continue as an affluent society demands clean water, clean air, uncontaminated soil and environment, as less affluent societies have the luxury to do. Coal is the most plentiful and cheapest fuel source on Earth and President Trump is on board to utilize it but also to develop processes to make it clean and environmentally friendly. That should be the emphasis and not just phasing it out because it isn't as clean as natural gas now. And yes, as natural gas is a plentiful and environmentally friendly fuel source, we should continue to drill, drill, drill.

When the carbon fuels gradually run out on Planet Earth, humankind will have developed fuel sources more like the visionary Star Trek models. I wish I could be around for that, but hopefully I'll get to watch. :)
 
Top Bottom