The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[angelo]

I've asked you before to post one, just one prediction GW/CC/CD of doom made in the past decade that's actually occurred! Just as well I wasn't holding my breath for a response! The cult has taken hold of many and blinded all rational thought on the subject unless it's pro.

I'm wasn't aware I'd been asked. If you posted it in a thread in Political Discussions, then I haven't read it since the admins have kindly hidden that subforum from me.

I can't think of a single prediction of doom made in the scientific literature that was supposed to come to pass by 2019.

The only prediction of doom I'm aware of is the one I've cited in another thread:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...he-near-future&p=716879&viewfull=1#post716879

Perhaps you can show me an example of a expert report or a research paper that has made a "prediction of doom" which turned out to be wrong.

Here are just 18 prophecies that have been spectacularly wrong.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

 

[angelo]

Today we agree that Ehrlich is full of shit because his predictions didn't pan out. At the time he was accepted as a guru.

Still nothing to do with climate, and no quote for your Al Gore claim.

I call bullshit.

I call your bullshit and show you my hand.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12...would-be-gone-inconveniently-its-still-there/

 

[bigfield]

I've asked you before to post one, just one prediction GW/CC/CD of doom made in the past decade that's actually occurred! Just as well I wasn't holding my breath for a response! The cult has taken hold of many and blinded all rational thought on the subject unless it's pro.

I'm wasn't aware I'd been asked. If you posted it in a thread in Political Discussions, then I haven't read it since the admins have kindly hidden that subforum from me.

I can't think of a single prediction of doom made in the scientific literature that was supposed to come to pass by 2019.

The only prediction of doom I'm aware of is the one I've cited in another thread:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...he-near-future&p=716879&viewfull=1#post716879

Perhaps you can show me an example of a expert report or a research paper that has made a "prediction of doom" which turned out to be wrong.

Here are just 18 prophecies that have been spectacularly wrong.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

So you are unable to present a single climate science report or research paper that has made a "prediction of doom" which turned out to be wrong.

This is a thread about the science of climate change; I don't have any interest in predictions that aren't based on climate science, and I don't have any interest in what politicians and media personalities have to say about climate change.

This should be a wake up call for you: you've formed some pretty stupid ideas about climate change (example), probably because the information you're getting is filtered through the mass media and dipshit blogs.

 

[angelo]

Here are just 18 prophecies that have been spectacularly wrong.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

So you are unable to present a single climate science report or research paper that has made a "prediction of doom" which turned out to be wrong.

This is a thread about the science of climate change; I don't have any interest in predictions that aren't based on climate science, and I don't have any interest in what politicians and media personalities have to say about climate change.

This should be a wake up call for you: you've formed some pretty stupid ideas about climate change (example), probably because the information you're getting is filtered through the mass media and dipshit blogs.

What is post number 361, a pie with tomato ketchup?

 

[bigfield]

What is post number 361, a pie with tomato ketchup?

It's not what I asked for, which was:

Perhaps you can show me an example of a expert report or a research paper that has made a "prediction of doom" which turned out to be wrong.

Are you having trouble understanding?

 

[skepticalbip]

What is post number 361, a pie with tomato ketchup?

It's not what I asked for, which was:

Perhaps you can show me an example of a expert report or a research paper that has made a "prediction of doom" which turned out to be wrong.

Are you having trouble understanding?

I know of no science research paper that predicted doom that didn't happen. Sadly, I do know of 'scientists' who predicted doom under political pressure. The coming ice age of the 1970s is one such case.

https://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html#2f8ae4f1260f

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

The government had a book authored by eighteen 'scientists' published, warning of this coming ice age and largely blaming humans burning fossil fuel as a major contributing factor.

This book frightened a co-worker at the time and he gave me a copy to read. I only saw a lot of hand waving in the claims but it did get me started in paying some attention to the 'climate debate' that continues to this day which I still see as more politically driven than science driven.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

It's not what I asked for, which was:



Are you having trouble understanding?

I know of no science research paper that predicted doom that didn't happen. Sadly, I do know of 'scientists' who predicted doom under political pressure. The coming ice age of the 1970s is one such case.

https://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html#2f8ae4f1260f

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

The government had a book authored by eighteen 'scientists' published, warning of this coming ice age and largely blaming humans burning fossil as a major contributing factor.

This book frightened a co-worker at the time and he gave me a copy to read. I only saw a lot of hand waving in the claims but it did get me started in paying some attention to the 'climate debate' that continues to this day which I still see as more politically driven than science driven.

Lots of us are very Randian in that way, it's not effecting me yet so fuck it as it were. Hope ya have kids and grandkids. I'm going to enjoy just sitting back and watching this all go down; the empire is in decline.

 

[bigfield]

I know of no science research paper that predicted doom that didn't happen. Sadly, I do know of 'scientists' who predicted doom under political pressure. The coming ice age of the 1970s is one such case.

https://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/c...telligent-technology-sutton.html#2f8ae4f1260f

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

That is actually two quotes, from two different sources, stuck together to create the impression that the first statement is a premise supporting the latter.

The first quote is from a 1974 article:

"During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade."

http://www.archive.org/stream/sciencechallenge00nati#page/24/mode/2up

The second is from a 1972 article, and has been truncated to omit the timeframe:

"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now. However, it is possible, or even likely that human interference has already altered the climate so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path."

http://www.archive.org/stream/patternsperspect00nati#page/54/mode/2up

The author of the Forbes article, Gary Sutton, is making a deliberate attempt to deceive the reader, and he's clearly having some success.

James Schlesinger tries a similar quote-mining tactic at the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...settled/62c458de-a6d4-4046-a873-43f070b7c6c9/

 

[skepticalbip]

That is actually two quotes, from two different sources, stuck together to create the impression that the first statement is a premise supporting the latter.

The first quote is from a 1974 article:

"During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade."

http://www.archive.org/stream/sciencechallenge00nati#page/24/mode/2up

The second is from a 1972 article, and has been truncated to omit the timeframe:

"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now. However, it is possible, or even likely that human interference has already altered the climate so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path."

http://www.archive.org/stream/patternsperspect00nati#page/54/mode/2up

The author of the Forbes article, Gary Sutton, is making a deliberate attempt to deceive the reader, and he's clearly having some success.

James Schlesinger tries a similar quote-mining tactic at the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...settled/62c458de-a6d4-4046-a873-43f070b7c6c9/

Good catch. I didn't see that but it only supports my contention that the 'climate debate' was and still is more political than scientific.

I didn't really rely on that Forbes article for my understanding. I had never seen it before I just did a quick google search for an article to show that there was 'concern' over a coming ice age in the 1970s.

My understanding of the 'climate concern' of the time was the book that several 'scientists' authored about the coming ice age and the magazine and newspaper articles with interviews of the 'scientists'.

 

[bigfield]

Good catch. I didn't see that but it only supports my contention that the 'climate debate' was and still is more political than scientific.

I agree with your contention, but it's an entirely obvious and uninteresting distraction.

I didn't really rely on that Forbes article for my understanding. I had never seen it before I just did a quick google search for an article to show that there was 'concern' over a coming ice age in the 1970s.

Thanks for wasting my time.

Next time, don't bother exerting yourself.

My understanding of the 'climate concern' of the time was the book that several 'scientists' authored about the coming ice age and the magazine and newspaper articles with interviews of the 'scientists'.

I'm not interested in some popular pseudoscientific book from the 1970's. I'm only interested in what the science has say on the subject.

 

[skepticalbip]

I agree with your contention, but it's an entirely obvious and uninteresting distraction.

But it should be interesting to those who currently accept every climatic disaster prediction now being offered as 'scientific certainty'.

Thanks for wasting my time.

Next time, don't bother exerting yourself.

My understanding of the 'climate concern' of the time was the book that several 'scientists' authored about the coming ice age and the magazine and newspaper articles with interviews of the 'scientists'.

I'm not interested in some popular pseudoscientific book from the 1970's. I'm only interested in what the science has say on the subject.

I said from the start that I haven't seen it in the scientific research papers but, sadly, have seen it from 'scientists' who wrote those papers when communicating with the general public. "Scientists" are humans too and have opinions not directly supported by their scientific papers but which they interpret could support their personal opinion.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

I agree with your contention, but it's an entirely obvious and uninteresting distraction.



Thanks for wasting my time.

Next time, don't bother exerting yourself.

My understanding of the 'climate concern' of the time was the book that several 'scientists' authored about the coming ice age and the magazine and newspaper articles with interviews of the 'scientists'.

I'm not interested in some popular pseudoscientific book from the 1970's. I'm only interested in what the science has say on the subject.

I said from the start that I haven't seen it in the scientific research papers but, sadly, have seen it from 'scientists' who wrote those papers when communicating with the general public. "Scientists" are humans too and have opinions not directly supported by their scientific papers but which they interpret could support their personal opinion.

"I said from the start that I haven't seen it in the scientific research papers ... "

 

[bigfield]

I said from the start that I haven't seen it in the scientific research papers but, sadly, have seen it from 'scientists' who wrote those papers when communicating with the general public.

When you put 'scientists' in quotes, The implication is that you don't believe those people are actually scientists despite publishing scientific papers.

If you believe that these climate researchers are not really scientists, then we don't have any common ground on which to have a discussion about the subject, which is climate science.

If you meant the scare quotes some other way (?) then perhaps you can explain it.

"Scientists" are humans too and have opinions not directly supported by their scientific papers but which they interpret could support their personal opinion.

How do you suppose that this is relevant to the post you originally replied to? As far as I can tell you're just trying to change the subject.

If you had some example of a scientist misleading the public by representing his personal opinions as scientific fact then I could understand why you are bringing this up, but so far all you've managed to do is google some mendacious dickhead from Forbes.

 

[skepticalbip]

I said from the start that I haven't seen it in the scientific research papers but, sadly, have seen it from 'scientists' who wrote those papers when communicating with the general public.

When you put 'scientists' in quotes, The implication is that you don't believe those people are actually scientists despite publishing scientific papers.

If you believe that these climate researchers are not really scientists, then we don't have any common ground on which to have a discussion about the subject, which is climate science.

If you meant the scare quotes some other way (?) then perhaps you can explain it.

Certainly. They are absolutely scientists when doing their science. However when presenting their beliefs, that are broad extrapolations using unverified assumptions, to the general public then they are acting as 'scientists'. In a very different field, my most obvious dichotomy of this is Michio Kaku - he is a brilliant theoretical physicist but, in his discourses presented to the general public, he goes deeply into speculative claims presented as if it is real and is accepted by the audience as the science.

"Scientists" are humans too and have opinions not directly supported by their scientific papers but which they interpret could support their personal opinion.

How do you suppose that this is relevant to the post you originally replied to? As far as I can tell you're just trying to change the subject.

If you had some example of a scientist misleading the public by representing his personal opinions as scientific fact then I could understand why you are bringing this up, but so far all you've managed to do is google some mendacious dickhead from Forbes.

??
I gave you examples. The book about the coming ice age was written by the scientists who were doing the climate research but the research didn't actually verify their personal opinion apart from the research. The research only showed a couple decades of decreasing temperatures. These scientists also participated interviews for newscasts, newspapers, and magazines saying pretty much what their book said.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Certainly. They are absolutely scientists when doing their science. However when presenting their beliefs, that are broad extrapolations using unverified assumptions, to the general public then they are acting as 'scientists'. In a very different field, my most obvious dichotomy of this is Michio Kaku - he is a brilliant theoretical physicist but, in his discourses presented to the general public, he goes deeply into speculative claims presented as if it is real and is accepted by the audience as the science.

"Scientists" are humans too and have opinions not directly supported by their scientific papers but which they interpret could support their personal opinion.

How do you suppose that this is relevant to the post you originally replied to? As far as I can tell you're just trying to change the subject.

If you had some example of a scientist misleading the public by representing his personal opinions as scientific fact then I could understand why you are bringing this up, but so far all you've managed to do is google some mendacious dickhead from Forbes.

??
I gave you examples. The book about the coming ice age was written by the scientists who were doing the climate research but the research didn't actually verify their personal opinion apart from the research. The research only showed a couple decades of decreasing temperatures. These scientists also participated interviews for newscasts, newspapers, and magazines saying pretty much what their book said.

... so far all you've managed to do is google some mendacious dickhead from Forbes.

 

[fromderinside]

I said from the start that I haven't seen it in the scientific research papers but, sadly, have seen it from 'scientists' who wrote those papers when communicating with the general public. "Scientists" are humans too and have opinions not directly supported by their scientific papers but which they interpret could support their personal opinion.

A summary of consensus on consensus of scientific findings of human involvement in climate change.

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates onhuman-caused global warming http://Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming

AbstractThe consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishingclimate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results areconsistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent globalwarming. A survey of authors of those papers(N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol(2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of nonexperts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. Wedemonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates withexpertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming thatabstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming (‘no position’)represent nonendorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-establishedtheories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97%consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climatescientists and peer-reviewed studies.

 

[bigfield]

Certainly. They are absolutely scientists when doing their science. However when presenting their beliefs, that are broad extrapolations using unverified assumptions, to the general public then they are acting as 'scientists'. In a very different field, my most obvious dichotomy of this is Michio Kaku - he is a brilliant theoretical physicist but, in his discourses presented to the general public, he goes deeply into speculative claims presented as if it is real and is accepted by the audience as the science.

I see. Have you got any examples from climate science?

??
I gave you examples. The book about the coming ice age was written by the scientists who were doing the climate research but the research didn't actually verify their personal opinion apart from the research. The research only showed a couple decades of decreasing temperatures. These scientists also participated interviews for newscasts, newspapers, and magazines saying pretty much what their book said.

Which book is that? The Weather Conspiracy? The Forbes article doesn't actually provide any of that background information. (Mind you, I wouldn't trust it if it did.)

If you're recounting this from your memories of the late 1970's, then I'm sure you'll understand if I take it with a grain of salt.

I did a quick bit of googling myself, to try and understand why you'd linked me to that stupid article, and found an opinion piece by a climate scientist, published in Nature, which suggests that the authors of the book were not climate scientists and their work was little more than pseudoscience:

For example, very soon after the harsh "Winter of 1977" in the United States, as it is often called, we have The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Ballantine, New York, 1977). It: has many of the trappings of an instant book. Since its 'author' is "The Impact Team", a group of 18 non-weather experts calling themselves reporters, writers, researchers, and "back-up" (whatever that means) people, they had to turn elsewhere for scientific credibility. They chose the wrong people.

https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Schneider1977.pdf

Schneider contradicts your claim that the authors were scientists. The opinion piece also criticises the authors for relying on a couple of CIA reports for evidence.

What should I make of this? It seems to me that your memory of this book isn't accurate and I shouldn't pay any heed to your anecdote.

 

[lpetrich]

But you were aware of what a garbage disposal was. And AOC didn't grow up in New York City. Her family moved to a fairly affluent neighborhood in Yorktown Heights (so NYC laws are irrelevant) when she was five... though she wants to give the impression of having grown up in the Bronx where she had only lived until the age of five.

Even then, her family may not have had one. Her family was one of the poorer ones there, and she recalls grumbling about how they'd have nothing but rice and beans to eat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've asked you before to post one, just one prediction GW/CC/CD of doom made in the past decade that's actually occurred! Just as well I wasn't holding my breath for a response! The cult has taken hold of many and blinded all rational thought on the subject unless it's pro.

I'm wasn't aware I'd been asked. If you posted it in a thread in Political Discussions, then I haven't read it since the admins have kindly hidden that subforum from me.

I can't think of a single prediction of doom made in the scientific literature that was supposed to come to pass by 2019.

The only prediction of doom I'm aware of is the one I've cited in another thread:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...he-near-future&p=716879&viewfull=1#post716879

Perhaps you can show me an example of a expert report or a research paper that has made a "prediction of doom" which turned out to be wrong.

Here are just 18 prophecies that have been spectacularly wrong.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

You've tried this before. It's not climate scientists.

 

[lpetrich]

Ocasio-Cortez on Hurricanes and Climate Change - YouTube - she fended off a Republican's attempt to interrupt her, and she continued with asking about hurricane recovery on Vieques Island in Puerto Rico and then on the Virgin Islands. On Vieques, it was very negligent, while in the VI, it was very quick. AOC got a little bit more time, and she asked a FEMA guy how prepared FEMA was for an increased rate of natural disasters. Not very much, it seems.

The Dr. Mann there was Michael Mann of "hockey stick" fame. He testified about increased rates of big hurricanes and droughts and wildfires in recent years, well above what one can find for the last 1000 years.

Atlantic hurricanes and climate over the past 1,500 years | Nature (Atlantic hurricanes and climate over the past 1,500 years - PDF) has Michael Mann as one of the authors. Written in 2009, it notes that hurricanes were unusually strong over the decade before its publication, and the same seems to be true since then.

Long-term perspective on wildfires in the western USA | PNAS - a recent "fire deficit" in part from human fire-suppression activities. This keeps dead vegetation from getting burned off, eventually making worse fires. The best way to get rid of such vegetation, it seems, is to burn it -- make small forest fires to keep big ones from getting started.

Long-Term Aridity Changes in the Western United States | Science Climate precursors of multidecadal drought variability in the western United States - Hidalgo - 2004 - Water Resources Research - Wiley Online Library - the Medieval Warm Period, roughly 950 CE - 1250 CE - was a time of big droughts in the US West, and our similar unusually warm climate seems to be making more such droughts, like the recent big California ones.

AOC's 3:30-am awakening seems rather understandable.