Deaths from climate change

[Matador]

Have you published a peer reviewed paper before? I have, and I can assure you that it is not what you think. The scientific community, or rather, the scientific maffia, is extremely biased. The success of a paper being published heavily depends on whether your paper agrees with the reviewers vision of things, whether your paper does not offer competition to their previous work, whether there are important names in the list of authors, and many more unscientific and biased reasons. More over, if you paper goes against what is considered scientific consensus it will have a lot less chances of being published due to fear of being ostracized by the academic community.

This is painting with quite a broad brush.

I agree that you need to 'play to your audience', but my experience has been it isn't like what you describe. You definitely need to understand the stances and characterizations of the review committee, but understand that more than anything else, the people reviewing a transcript want to be cited more than anything regarding the conclusions drawn. And in fact, journals (at least the ones I've dealt with in the computer science realm) seek out dissension because it drives interest in the journal and can get more eyes on their publications.

The science mafia?

 

[cyrano]

What's much worse than getting to the point to get a paper published, are the numerous fake studies that get published, cause someone is paying for the entire operation.

Once you can spend real money, you just start your own publication. Several of those were around, when I found this interesting, two decades ago. The pharma industry started that trend. It seems to have invaded medical science since. Still, it's not as bad as the psychologists who use fake data all too often.

A study from a few years ago found 50% of the thousands of papers they looked at, unscientific. And that was all fields, not just one bad apple...

 

[user 37518]

This is painting with quite a broad brush.

I agree that you need to 'play to your audience', but my experience has been it isn't like what you describe. You definitely need to understand the stances and characterizations of the review committee, but understand that more than anything else, the people reviewing a transcript want to be cited more than anything regarding the conclusions drawn. And in fact, journals (at least the ones I've dealt with in the computer science realm) seek out dissension because it drives interest in the journal and can get more eyes on their publications.

The science mafia?

View attachment 111780

The reason why I used the term "science mafia" is because it is, in some fields there is an elite circle of authors who "help each other out" for lack of a better term, and who, sometimes, do despicable things. I know two colleagues who, on different occasions, submitted a paper which was immediately rejected, only to mysteriously see their same research published a couple of weeks later by different people. They filed a complaint to the journal and the journal promised to "take action", but the fact remains the same.

I've seen it many times, reviewers who ask for some specific papers to be cited in your paper, papers which probably belong to them (we can't be sure of that because the identity of the reviewers is withheld, but common sense says this is true), or that argue that some results or methods (theirs) are better than yours, or who dismiss the paper just because they work in the same field. Remember that the journal chooses reviewers who usually work in the same field or even in the same line of work, or even more, that are your direct competition. To claim science is unbiased, especially in a field such as climate change, is completely false.

My point is, science is not what people think it is, science is far from being objective, some fields are totally biased (e.g., climate change research) and going against the grain of "scientific consensus" will prove to be a very difficult thing to publish. If you want to publish a lot of papers, you have much more chances to do so if you are in favor of climate catastrophe than if you are not. That is an undeniable fact. So, to claim that the "science is settled" when it comes to climate change is a complete fantasy.

 

[user 37518]

What's much worse than getting to the point to get a paper published, are the numerous fake studies that get published, cause someone is paying for the entire operation.

Once you can spend real money, you just start your own publication. Several of those were around, when I found this interesting, two decades ago. The pharma industry started that trend. It seems to have invaded medical science since. Still, it's not as bad as the psychologists who use fake data all too often.

A study from a few years ago found 50% of the thousands of papers they looked at, unscientific. And that was all fields, not just one bad apple...

Climate catastrophe can be even worse than bogus psychological research, since it is based on speculation and models. These people have what I call "Markov Mentality", which is based on Markov chains; these discrete dynamic systems set a series of conditions, and assume that things stay the same, then, they start iterating and obtain a result 10, 20, 30,100 years into the future and reach the conclusion that the world is going to end.

I am not saying this is the way they actually make their climate models, I am saying this is the mentality they have, they just extrapolate and believe it as Gospel truth. You listen to it all the time, it goes something like this "Scientists predict that if the current state of things continue, in X years this will happen", that is Markov Mentality:

 

[cyrano]

That's not proving anything else than that their time scale was wrong...

Polar ice is retracting at an alarming rate. Maybe Al was a decade off, but it is happening. See here:

https://scholar.google.be/scholar?hl=nl&as_sdt=0,5&q=greenland+ice+cap&btnG=&oq=greenland+ice
There are numerous observations...

 

[user 37518]

That's not proving anything else than that their time scale was wrong...

Polar ice is retracting at an alarming rate. Maybe Al was a decade off, but it is happening. See here:

https://scholar.google.be/scholar?hl=nl&as_sdt=0,5&q=greenland+ice+cap&btnG=&oq=greenland+ice
There are numerous observations...

That has been known for many years, it is certainly not news, nor does it mean certain catastrophe. When I was a kid they played the movie "Waterworld" to us in school and told us that it was based on a very probable future. Yeah... no. I grew up wondering when (not if) would that happen.

Again, it's Markov mentality, they just keep pushing their doomsday date further into the future.

P.S. the first paper in your link is a paper from 1987, so, again, we are not talking about something new.

 

[cyrano]

 

[user 37518]

That is the same video I posted on post #689

 

[JohnRoberts]

Climate catastrophe can be even worse than bogus psychological research, since it is based on speculation and models. These people have what I call "Markov Mentality", which is based on Markov chains; these discrete dynamic systems set a series of conditions, and assume that things stay the same, then, they start iterating and obtain a result 10, 20, 30,100 years into the future and reach the conclusion that the world is going to end.

I am not saying this is the way they actually make their climate models, I am saying this is the mentality they have, they just extrapolate and believe it as Gospel truth. You listen to it all the time, it goes something like this "Scientists predict that if the current state of things continue, in X years this will happen", that is Markov Mentality:

Koonin's book "Unsettled" does a deep dive into climate modeling and reporting. He used to be an inside guy, before getting profoundly disappointed by the unsupported conclusions being proffered as "science" .

Objective data is fact, conclusions are opinions often informed by ideological agendas.

For example be cautious about the new flurry of "hottest day ever" scare tactics. alternate opinion another

Numerous corporate media outlets drove the narrative that July 3-5 was the hottest 72-hour stretch ever on record, citing a data tool from the University of Maine that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has warned is not as dependable as traditional observational data. [emphasis, links added]

JR

 

[cyrano]

Yep. But the media's mistakes are easier to spot. Besides, in the best case a newspaper article, or a website page is mostly just the start of the story. Newspapers don't do science very well, I'm afraid.

 

[ruffrecords]

Good thing we're not in the Middle Ages, and are instead in an age of the scientific method, peer review, etc. Which is not to claim that the scientific community is infallible, of course. But given their success in, well, pulling civilization out of the Middle Ages, maney of us are not so inclined to easily dismiss their findings.

And those who question those findings are often vilified, not unlike the middle ages. Unfortunately today, climate science has been politicised to the extent reasonable scepticism is called denial.

Edit: Fortunately some real scientists including a couple of nobel prize winning physicists are prepared to stand up and show the flaws in the current thinking. As one of them, Dr. Clauser put it

The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.

Cheers

Ian

 

[scott2000]

be cautious about the new flurry of "hottest day ever" scare tactics.

Farmer's Almanac probably pretty good?

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Six million is peanuts, really.

I also don't understand where people get the idea that outlawing internal combustion engines is what's proposed. That's just a lie. And a big one that gets repeated time and time again. Always by the same people who apparently need a mantra to cling to.

Because it is happening. California is the highest population state in the USA (over 10% of the total) and has huge influence in DC. VP and several cabinet members are from CA. It's clear that current CA governor Gavin Newsom is being prepared to take over POTUS.

Here's what's happening there:

https://www.newsweek.com/list-equipment-affected-gavin-newsom-ban-small-engines-california-1640341
If electric versions of these devices were actually better or viable alternatives then they' be in use by now. In some cases they are (homeowners with small lots, etc.). But in most cases they are not, so gov do-gooders are forcing the issue to the detriment of thousands of small businesses and the public safety of millions of residents in power outages (in the case of backup generators).

And, yes, ICE cars are on the block by 2035 while diesel engines have already been severely restricted despite their being more efficient and long-lived (amortizing the sunk cost of their initial manufacturing over a longer lifetime) for trucking and other uses.

https://www.businessfleet.com/159374/new-calif-diesel-regulations-got-compliance
These engines all have complex DEF systems and have been a safety issue for operators/drivers. DEF is yet another chemical concoction that must be manufactured, transported, and purchased nationwide.

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/31/1167561417/california-diesel-truck-phase-out-plan-epa
This is laughable because there is no EV alternative that can haul the same loads with the same range that diesel trucks do every day.

What we want, is clean exhaust. Hydrogen as a solution has the benefit that it can be "burnt" cleanly in a classic engine and in a fuel cell.

Hydrogen has major problems with generation and distribution due to its density. Thousands of psi is a real challenge. This also limits the available volume of fuel tank as well as its shape. Currently available fueling systems are clunky at best and freeze in humid environments.

Oldfashioned tech, like engines has reached the peak of it's performance. It will still be around for years to come.

Efficiency and performance gains are still being made, but there is an upper limit unless waste heat can be converted to something usable.

The next problem we need to tackle, isn't the propulsion. We already have the tech for propulsion with clean exhaust. It's the rest of the hazardous materials: brake- and tire dust. That'll be a harder nut to crack.

Fourth order problems that aren't in the mix. Asbestos isn't used for brake pads AFAIK. Certainly not in the US. What are you wanting to mandate next, EV hovercars?

And then we need to look at asphalt and how we can replace it with something that's not so unhealthy.

Concrete. Except silicosis is real and concrete has high extraction and manufacturing costs and energy requirements. But your magical EV hovercraft solves that!

Bottom line: the left has no pragmatism.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

This is painting with quite a broad brush.

Yet accurate in my limited experience.

I agree that you need to 'play to your audience', but my experience has been it isn't like what you describe. You definitely need to understand the stances and characterizations of the review committee, but understand that more than anything else, the people reviewing a transcript want to be cited more than anything regarding the conclusions drawn.

Which are already major corrupting influences.

And in fact, journals (at least the ones I've dealt with in the computer science realm) seek out dissension because it drives interest in the journal and can get more eyes on their publications.

That wasn't my experience in the AI/Pattern Recognition/Computer Vision realm c.1989-91. There and then the major publications were dominated by a few big names running a few big labs at places like MIT, Carnegie-Mellon, UIUC, Berkeley and the like.

Even as a green 23 year old working on my MS thesis I saw the pattern. The big guys would publish papers via their grad students with little incremental changes from the last paper. 80% of each was repetitive boiler-plate with the same stale citations. And I found quite a few nontrivial errors in the 75-100 papers I read during my research. I'd bring them to my advisor and he'd check my findings. Not once did he determine that my reported error was, in fact, no error. That opened my eyes to the reality of "peer reviewed," publish or perish, "science." I won't relate the even worse situation I encountered in a grad level cognitive psychology course.

The science mafia?

View attachment 111780

Absolutely.

 

[scott2000]

The phrase the "Greta crowd" perfectly depicts those fanatics following a child who preaches doomsday stories.

lol

 

[JohnRoberts]

And those who question those findings are often vilified, not unlike the middle ages. Unfortunately today, climate science has been politicised to the extent reasonable scepticism is called denial.

Edit: Fortunately some real scientists including a couple of nobel prize winning physicists are prepared to stand up and show the flaws in the current thinking. As one of them, Dr. Clauser put it



Cheers

Ian

I wasn't familiar with that name but it turns out he is the guy behind the cloud formation NF loop hypothesis.

Changes in the radiative heat transfer rate (known as radiative forcing) associated with changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide is nearly two orders of magnitude smaller than the effective stabilization of the input-power provided by the cloud-based thermostat. The role of carbon dioxide may thus be considered negligible by comparison. It should be noted that reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and National Academy of Sciences repeatedly concede that the effects of clouds do indeed represent the greatest uncertainty in their climate predictions. But these organizations have made little progress in dealing with these deficiencies.

It seems there is a new scientific consensus that A) we do not have a climate crisis, and B) The role of carbon dioxide may thus be considered negligible by comparison to cloud formation.

This still means that we need more comprehensive climate models to accurately characterize cloud cover. As computers continue to get more powerful we may see that modeling shortfall closed at some point (right now cloud cover is averaged over too large areas). Spending on this climate modeling research seems prudent.

JR

 

[user 37518]

There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.

And that is the real problem, but the Soros and Schwabs of the world are not interested in that. They want you to "own nothing and be happy"

 

[user 37518]

lol

That is one troubled brat

 

[JohnRoberts]

And that is the real problem, but the Soros and Schwabs of the world are not interested in that. They want you to "own nothing and be happy"

A new tidbit for the globalist conspiracy crowd,

Vice President Kamala Harris said Friday in Baltimore, Maryland, that reducing population can contribute to improved air and water quality. Harris made the gaffe during remarks promoting the Biden administration's massive green spending agenda.

but she meant to say "reduce pollution," according to the White house clean up.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

Yep. But the media's mistakes are easier to spot. Besides, in the best case a newspaper article, or a website page is mostly just the start of the story. Newspapers don't do science very well, I'm afraid.

Sometimes the mistakes are subtle and play into the climate ideology.

I read an article yesterday about a home insurance company dropping coverage in CA and FL, the writer said this was related to increasing intensity of weather due to climate change.

JR

PS: I shouldn't temp mother nature too much. The Caribbean is getting pretty warm suggesting some strong energy pickup for tropical storms. 5 Named Atlantic storms already this season.

 

[jabe]

That is one troubled brat

She seems to taking the constant harassment fairly well.
Memo to self: start calling the fossil fuel uber alles folks the Andrew Tate crowd and claim they're following a sex trafficer, since that's apparently how this works. /s

 

[jabe]

An old tidbit for the fossil fuel conspiracy crowd. https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/01/business/exxon-tape-video-keith-mccoy/index.html

 

[AnalogPackrat]

A new tidbit for the globalist conspiracy crowd,


JR

Kamala just let her actual belief/goal slip out. If she really believed it she could volunteer. But like the Kerrys and Gores of the world, they expect the rest of us peons to make the sacrifices.

 

[user 37518]

Memo to self: start calling the fossil fuel uber alles folks the Andrew Tate crowd and claim they're following a sex trafficer, since that's apparently how this works. /s

May I point out that you didn't refute absolutely anything, but rather appeal to ridicule as if that somehow proves something?

Also, Greta is taking the heat very well, because the heat is accompanied by tons of money....

 

[user 41968]

Kamala just let her actual belief/goal slip out. If she really believed it she could volunteer. But like the Kerrys and Gores of the world, they expect the rest of us peons to make the sacrifices.

VP HARRIS: "When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children can breath clean air and drink clean water."

It's "conspiracy theory de jour" when I say it but here we are with Kamala saying it out loud.

Read my lips: "The carbon they want to eliminate is you."

 

[Matador]

May I point out that you didn't refute absolutely anything, but rather appeal to ridicule as if that somehow proves something?

There was nothing to refute: jabe just showed us a near textbook application of the transitive property of internet bullshit.

 

[user 37518]

There was nothing to refute: jabe just showed us a near textbook application of the transitive property of internet bullshit.

There were a lot of arguments being proposed by the others and I. He just gave an absurd analogy, but, ok.

 

[cyrano]

If the arguments are just gossip from the internet, there's really no reason to refute anything. Hey, there seems to be a consensus among scientists that there is no climate problem...

I don't know, but none of the scientists I know personally, seem to follow that consensus.