The Sociological Origin of AGW

[Quaestio]

Apparently, this is an example of:

Bwahahah! Jack just proved my point with that WUWT blog post about a 'paper' that was published in the "Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons." It's not actually a peer-reviewed Journal despite trying to pass itself off as one. It used to be called the Medical Sentinel. It's the political publication of "The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons" who are a fringe bunch of ultra-conservative political advocates making all sorts of non-scientific quack claims.

Indur Goklany's PhD is in Electrical Engineering. He is not a physician or a climate scientist. He's a paid climate science denier who has been involved with conservative/libertarian political think tanks -Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute.

The commenters on that WUWT blog post gullibly lapped it all up like it was the gospel truth.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Oxfam EU biofuels expert Marc Olivier Herman concurred, insisting: “MEPs have failed in their duty to represent the best interests of their electorate and the one in eight people going to bed hungry each night.”

Biofuels policy causes hunger | The National

Thanks Jack for the link.

It still not the one I am after but...

With 1 in 8 of the world's population going hungry how any figures less than 10 million deaths per year can come out is beyond me.

Poor people die quietly. No news feed. No camers. No fuss. 1 bilion x the % figue you think adding 70% to basic food prices causes to die each year.

Add to that the locking into poverty of the world's poor as they cannot possibly afford to send their kids to school or buy that mosquito net..

 

[Threegoofs]

Bwahahah! Jack just proved my point with that WUWT blog post about a 'paper' that was published in the "Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons." It's not actually a peer-reviewed Journal despite trying to pass itself off as one. It used to be called the Medical Sentinel. It's the political publication of "The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons" who are a fringe bunch of ultra-conservative political advocates making all sorts of non-scientific quack claims.

Indur Goklany's PhD is in Electrical Engineering. He is not a physician or a climate scientist. He's a paid climate science denier who has been involved with conservative/libertarian political think tanks -Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute.

The commenters on that WUWT blog post gullibly lapped it all up like it was the gospel truth.

That's why it never pays to follow any of Jack's denier cut and paste detritus.

 

[Quaestio]

That's why it never pays to follow any of Jack's denier cut and paste detritus.

Watts must love Jack's contribution to his advertising revenue with thousands of click-bait spam posts promoting his Climate Truther blog.

 

[Jack Hays]

Bwahahah! Jack just proved my point with that WUWT blog post about a 'paper' that was published in the "Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons." It's not actually a peer-reviewed Journal despite trying to pass itself off as one. It used to be called the Medical Sentinel. It's the political publication of "The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons" who are a fringe bunch of ultra-conservative political advocates making all sorts of non-scientific quack claims.

Indur Goklany's PhD is in Electrical Engineering. He is not a physician or a climate scientist. He's a paid climate science denier who has been involved with conservative/libertarian political think tanks -Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute.

The commenters on that WUWT blog post gullibly lapped it all up like it was the gospel truth.

To which the appropriate response is to ask: So what?

Care to discuss the substance? Or is ad hominem all you've got?

 

[Jack Hays]

That's why it never pays to follow any of Jack's denier cut and paste detritus.

Watts must love Jack's contribution to his advertising revenue with thousands of click-bait spam posts promoting his Climate Truther blog.

You continue to fear the data.

 

[Mithrae]

Bwahahah! Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. He probably read it on a Climate Truther blog like WUWT and gullibly believed it was a 'paper'.

There's undoubtedly papers about the negative impacts of commercial biofuels (distinct from biofuel from organic waste) - Jack has posted a few useful references. The things which are so absurd about Tim constantly posting these claims are:

> He is consistently and deliberately ignoring the fact that even within the same type of hunger-causation (inefficient use of agricultural land), feeding cars is still only the second-biggest issue after feeding cows and other farm animals. His constant 'outrage' about the lesser of these is obviously nothing more than expression of his rabid anti-scientific ideology.

> Tim consistently and deliberately ignores the fact that this has everything to do with political expediency and business interests, and nothing to do with fighting climate change. I've pointed that out to him as early as 2014, citing prominent environmentalist George Monbiot's articles published in the Guardian in 2004! The fact is even noted in the links Jack has provided: "evidence from real production data, and new analyses bear out what many scientists have been saying: most if not all biofuels offer no savings in energy or carbon emissions, especially when indirect emissions from deforestation and other land use changes are taken into account, as they should be." And from another of the links, "Not only do the land use changes (shifting crops from food and feed to fuel) escalate greenhouse gas emissions, but the fertilizers required to grow industrial biofuels release nitrous oxides, which are 300 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas compared to carbon dioxide." (Obviously, feeding cows is pretty bad for global emissions too :lol: )

> But most obviously and pathetically, Tim's constant claim that "tens of millions" of people die each year from this is blatantly is utterly false; for example the paper in the WUWT link posted by Jack suggests a figure of 192,000 per year. And when I say that Tim posts this barefaced lie constantly, I mean constantly; I posted a couple of examples from 2014 above, and here's a few more recent examples, most or all of which were called out (especially by Deuce, trooper that he is):
November 2015: "Tens of millions of people are dying each year due to this."
January 2016: "Tens of millions per year die today as they have been for 20 years or so due to this green crap"
January 2016: "I think there are many times the tens of millions of extra deaths than the 10 million per year due to the use of food as fuel"
March 2016: "10 million people per year at least die due to lack of food due to it's use as fuel."
June 2016: "we are killing 10 million plus each year today by using food as fuel."



The fact that he also occasionally tries to slander folk on the forum for allegedly not caring and even supposed complicity in this politically expedient/business scheme whose consequences he's chosen to multiply a hundred-fold in his imagination is merely the cherry on the cake here :lol:

 

[Mithrae]

Ironically, Tim's escapades on this issue irresistibly remind me of Proverbs 26:11.

 

[Quaestio]

Ironically, Tim's escapades on this issue irresistibly remind me of Proverbs 26:11.

I just had to look that up. LOL! Very colorful.

 

[Quaestio]

There's undoubtedly papers about the negative impacts of commercial biofuels (distinct from biofuel from organic waste) - Jack has posted a few useful references. The things which are so absurd about Tim constantly posting these claims are:

> He is consistently and deliberately ignoring the fact that even within the same type of hunger-causation (inefficient use of agricultural land), feeding cars is still only the second-biggest issue after feeding cows and other farm animals. His constant 'outrage' about the lesser of these is obviously nothing more than expression of his rabid anti-scientific ideology.

> Tim consistently and deliberately ignores the fact that this has everything to do with political expediency and business interests, and nothing to do with fighting climate change. I've pointed that out to him as early as 2014, citing prominent environmentalist George Monbiot's articles published in the Guardian in 2004! The fact is even noted in the links Jack has provided: "evidence from real production data, and new analyses bear out what many scientists have been saying: most if not all biofuels offer no savings in energy or carbon emissions, especially when indirect emissions from deforestation and other land use changes are taken into account, as they should be." And from another of the links, "Not only do the land use changes (shifting crops from food and feed to fuel) escalate greenhouse gas emissions, but the fertilizers required to grow industrial biofuels release nitrous oxides, which are 300 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas compared to carbon dioxide." (Obviously, feeding cows is pretty bad for global emissions too :lol: )

> But most obviously and pathetically, Tim's constant claim that "tens of millions" of people die each year from this is blatantly is utterly false; for example the paper in the WUWT link posted by Jack suggests a figure of 192,000 per year. And when I say that Tim posts this barefaced lie constantly, I mean constantly; I posted a couple of examples from 2014 above, and here's a few more recent examples, most or all of which were called out (especially by Deuce, trooper that he is):
November 2015: "Tens of millions of people are dying each year due to this."
January 2016: "Tens of millions per year die today as they have been for 20 years or so due to this green crap"
January 2016: "I think there are many times the tens of millions of extra deaths than the 10 million per year due to the use of food as fuel"
March 2016: "10 million people per year at least die due to lack of food due to it's use as fuel."
June 2016: "we are killing 10 million plus each year today by using food as fuel."



The fact that he also occasionally tries to slander folk on the forum for allegedly not caring and even supposed complicity in this politically expedient/business scheme whose consequences he's chosen to multiply a hundred-fold in his imagination is merely the cherry on the cake here :lol:

When even an ultra-conservative political fringe group of quacks like the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, in a 'paper' published in their own non-peer reviewed 'Journal' can only manufacture a figure of an alleged additional 192,000 deaths as opposed to Tim's hysterical alarmist claim of "tens of millions of deaths per year!", it doesn't bode well for his claim being based in reality.

The cherry on the cake for me was the fact that he'd been making these absurd claims and abusing posters like yourself, then had to turn around and ask others to find the 'paper' he had supposedly been basing his claims on.

 

[Quaestio]

There's undoubtedly papers about the negative impacts of commercial biofuels (distinct from biofuel from organic waste)

Doing a bit of investigation from the thread links you provided. It all seems to go back to the UK government's commissioned 2008 report "The Gallagher Review of the indirect effects of biofuels production"
https://www.unido.org/fileadmin/use...onference__Maanila_/GC13/Gallagher_Report.pdf

This report was touted in one of Tim's media sources, as being a 'secret report'. How was it secret when it was freely available to the public to read? It also doesn't even use the word 'death' even once.

 

[joG]

My mistake. I confused it with a water-temperature phenomenon.

A pity really. IT was such a nice picture and wonderfully mysterious.

 

[Tim the plumber]

There's undoubtedly papers about the negative impacts of commercial biofuels (distinct from biofuel from organic waste) - Jack has posted a few useful references. The things which are so absurd about Tim constantly posting these claims are:

See above for the full rant.

The fact that he also occasionally tries to slander folk on the forum for allegedly not caring and even supposed complicity in this politically expedient/business scheme whose consequences he's chosen to multiply a hundred-fold in his imagination is merely the cherry on the cake here :lol:

I do not think it is reasonable to expect to change the eating habits of the world. I do not think that this is do able or indeed needed given that we produce more food than we need already.

I do think using food as fuel is killing many millions of people per year as I cannot imagine any other result when the price of food is 70 % higher as a result of this practice. The poorest billion people multiplied by any percentage will give you a figure that is higher than a few hundred thousand.

I am accused by you and others of not caring about the future of humanity often due to not being worried about a tiny sea level rise of having slightly different crops grown.

Those such as Greenpeace et al who are able to invade GM crop fields and stop the disribution of golden rice seed in India could with a tiny amount of effort have a couple of demonstrations outside a biofuel plant and stop this mass murder. They do not. They provide the amunition for the farming lobby to restrict food and thus push up the price.

Not LOLing at all.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Doing a bit of investigation from the thread links you provided. It all seems to go back to the UK government's commissioned 2008 report "The Gallagher Review of the indirect effects of biofuels production"
https://www.unido.org/fileadmin/use...onference__Maanila_/GC13/Gallagher_Report.pdf

This report was touted in one of Tim's media sources, as being a 'secret report'. How was it secret when it was freely available to the public to read? It also doesn't even use the word 'death' even once.

Not my report this was done by the Renewable fuels Agency. Chaired by Ed Gallagher.

Do you expect that they would want to admit to killing millions of people?

 

[Mithrae]

I do not think it is reasonable to expect to change the eating habits of the world. I do not think that this is do able or indeed needed given that we produce more food than we need already.

And yet you'll whinge and moan for years on end about a smaller wastage of agricultural land.

I do think using food as fuel is killing many millions of people per year as I cannot imagine any other result when the price of food is 70 % higher as a result of this practice. The poorest billion people multiplied by any percentage will give you a figure that is higher than a few hundred thousand.

Most of the world's poorest people grow their own food - I explicitly posted that fact for you earlier, but obviously you're not interested in anything as mundane as facts. You prefer to rely on your imagination :roll:

I am accused by you and others of not caring about the future of humanity often due to not being worried about a tiny sea level rise of having slightly different crops grown.

One of the major causes of global hunger in the last decade or so has been the changing patterns of drought and flooding due to climate change. Again, a fact noted by the source I provided earlier - since it was just too difficult for you to Google 'hunger deaths per year' for yourself - and one of the biggest (if not the biggest) impacts of future climate change which I have highlighted and fully referenced for you about a dozen times previously. But you just love talking about sea level rise, don't you?

Those such as Greenpeace et al who are able to invade GM crop fields and stop the disribution of golden rice seed in India could with a tiny amount of effort have a couple of demonstrations outside a biofuel plant and stop this mass murder. They do not. They provide the amunition for the farming lobby to restrict food and thus push up the price.

Not LOLing at all.

I didn't say you were LOLing, I said you're lying. As of 2012 there are about 9 million hunger-related deaths per year globally, which has been pointed out to you many times previously, yet you have constantly kept claiming "tens of millions" and "more than ten million" deaths per year from a distant fourth or sixth biggest contributor.

And now yet again - at least two and a half years since you first started posting this BS - after you begged other posters to provide you with a paper quantifying the effect and Jack obliged, you've decided to calmly brush it off and stick with your own fertile imagination instead!

 

[Tim the plumber]

And yet you'll whinge and moan for years on end about a smaller wastage of agricultural land.



Most of the world's poorest people grow their own food - I explicitly posted that fact for you earlier, but obviously you're not interested in anything as mundane as facts. You prefer to rely on your imagination :roll:

Indian street dwellers and Nigerian urban people do not grow their own food. Those who own land are generally not in the poorest billion. But since you think it's only a couple of hundred thousand a year why would you care at all?

One of the major causes of global hunger in the last decade or so has been the changing patterns of drought and flooding due to climate change. Again, a fact noted by the source I provided earlier - since it was just too difficult for you to Google 'hunger deaths per year' for yourself - and one of the biggest (if not the biggest) impacts of future climate change which I have highlighted and fully referenced for you about a dozen times previously. But you just love talking about sea level rise, don't you?

Where has there been unusual droughts outside America (and those are not out of the normal range of variability)?

I didn't say you were LOLing, I said you're lying. As of 2012 there are about 9 million hunger-related deaths per year globally, which has been pointed out to you many times previously, yet you have constantly kept claiming "tens of millions" and "more than ten million" deaths per year from a distant fourth or sixth biggest contributor.

And now yet again - at least two and a half years since you first started posting this BS - after you begged other posters to provide you with a paper quantifying the effect and Jack obliged, you've decided to calmly brush it off and stick with your own fertile imagination instead!

So your position is that it's only in the hundreds of thousands so you just don't care at all. OK.

 

[The Vincer]

When even an ultra-conservative political fringe group of quacks like the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, in a 'paper' published in their own non-peer reviewed 'Journal' can only manufacture a figure of an alleged additional 192,000 deaths as opposed to Tim's hysterical alarmist claim of "tens of millions of deaths per year!", it doesn't bode well for his claim being based in reality.

The cherry on the cake for me was the fact that he'd been making these absurd claims and abusing posters like yourself, then had to turn around and ask others to find the 'paper' he had supposedly been basing his claims on.

First fact; biofuels convert food into fuel.

Supply and demand says more demand same supply prices go up.

Food costs money, the poorest people that can only barely afford enough food to survive will no longer have enough food, causing people to die.

---

Now, the question: if 192 000 is acceptable, where's the cut off where it becomes an issue?

 

[Jack Hays]

When even an ultra-conservative political fringe group of quacks like the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, in a 'paper' published in their own non-peer reviewed 'Journal' can only manufacture a figure of an alleged additional 192,000 deaths as opposed to Tim's hysterical alarmist claim of "tens of millions of deaths per year!", it doesn't bode well for his claim being based in reality.

The cherry on the cake for me was the fact that he'd been making these absurd claims and abusing posters like yourself, then had to turn around and ask others to find the 'paper' he had supposedly been basing his claims on.

Please see my #50.

 

[Mithrae]

So your position is that it's only in the hundreds of thousands so you just don't care at all. OK.

We're back to slander to then, I see. And let's not kid ourselves, you'll be posting your "at least ten million" bull**** again within the month, won't you?

If not - if you have even the slightest shred of integrity and intelligence in that mind of yours - could we at least get a clear and honest acknowledgement that since there are fewer than ten million hunger-related deaths per year, your claim which you have constantly made over two and a half years and been constantly called out on is and always has been blatantly and obviously false?

You can keep slandering and lying about me personally after that if you really want, but perpetually smearing all those hard-working politicians and the agri-businesses keen for their 'green' subsidies is just unfair mate!

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]Urbane Legends[/h]Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach So we were sitting around the fire at the fish camp on the Colombia a few days ago, and a man said “Did you hear about the scientific study into meat preservatives?” We admitted our ignorance, and he started in. The story was like this: “A few years ago there…
Continue reading →