Sam Lowry said:

---

If there's a consensus, it's that climate is changing and humans are partly responsible. There's no consensus on the catastrophic predictions that Jinx and others endorse. The theoretical value of consensus makes little difference where no such consensus exists.

---

Following a Twitter thread where scientists complain of the NYT calling it a "crisis" when the report itself did not. They refer to a Judith Curry as a serious academic who is skeptical of predictive models but not the human role. Nuanced views simply get cherry picked for one team or the other.

Another interesting part of the conversation is about political bias. They all acknowledge it, that it may be why some entered the field, and that it particularly affects discussions about solutions. But as one says "the biases do not imply that there is no core of reality where CO2 increases surf(ace) temperature."

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

So a bunch of fad diets is the best example y'all have for science frauds?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Science can get things wrong. News reports hype one way or the other, with none of the caveats in the original scientific journal article. Replication either happens or it doesn't and therefore science advances.

---

Scientist laughed at the very idea of continental drift. Then came plate tectonics.

Scientists scoffed at the idea of Glacial Lake Missoula. Then an upstart analyzed the scab lands.

Scientists ridiculed the very idea of germ theory.

Science can't replicate any of the above, but now they are well settled.

---

Not one of those is a consensus hoax. Doc says there are lots of them. Y'all haven't shown me any. Scientific wrong turns? Sure. But Doc claimed hoaxes. Lots of them.

---

When the examples I listed were first proffered, they were considered shams and rejected by the science establishment.

Not sure what a consensus 'hoax' is. Maybe cranberries causing cancer?

Fifty-six Years Ago This Month, Americans Panicked Over Cranberries: the anniversary of the first carcinogen panic of the last century In 1999, we published the first edition of our classic cancer-scare compendium, "Facts vs. Fears: A Review of the Greatest Unfounded Health Scares of Recent Times." But the Great Cranberry Scare, which created havoc at the worst possible time, remains #1 on the list even today. Our initial booklet covered twenty scares. Unfortunately, too few among the public and the media paid sufficient attention, as the number of health scares in the latest edition of our publication (2004) ballooned to 28.

In November 1959, just days before Thanksgiving, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (the agency that preceded Health and Human Services), Arthur Fleming, set off a national food panic when he announced that domestic cranberry products were contaminated with a weed-killer called aminotriazole. Aminotriazole is a chemical that in huge doses the equivalent of eating 15,000 pounds of cranberries every day for several years was found to cause cancer in laboratory rodents. As a result of the federal warning, schools discarded cranberry products, restaurants changed their menus, supermarkets suspended sales and millions of Americans had Thanksgiving dinner without cranberry sauce. The cranberry scare of 1959 set the stage for decades of completely unnecessary anxiety about trace levels of agricultural chemicals and additives in food, noted Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan in "Facts vs. Fears." Dr. Whelan, the president of ACSH, and a co-founder of our organization, passed away in September of 2014. An important catalyst in the 1959 cranberry scare was the Delaney Clause, a 1958 amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that banned from food any artificial substance that could be shown to cause cancer in lab animals. What the Delaney Clause fails to recognize, explained Dr. Whelan is that lab animals are not little humans. The Delaney Clause also overlooks the fact that many natural substances safely consumed by Americans every day are also high-dose animal carcinogens, added Dr. Whelan. (Our "Holiday Dinner Menu" expands cogently and clearly on this topic). While animal studies play an important role in identifying potentially toxic or cancer-causing substances (carcinogens), their results often found at extraordinarily high doses cannot be directly applied to humans.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2015/11/23/the-first-great-chemical-cancer-scare-cranberries-thanksgiving-1959

---

Consensus hoax is Doc's term, still waiting on him to support it.

---

Good luck with that

jinx249503,

This piece pretty much summarizes my thoughts posted on the first page. It is, of course, much better written. It's a good read for all the climate alarmists.

I agree it's an issue. The biggest problem are those yelling "Fire!" about the problem.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/good-news-we-now-have-until-2030-to-save-the-earth/

"If the IPCC and others want us to reduce carbon emissions and there is every reason why we should want to do this, for reasons of averting climate change as well as localised pollution it would pay them to adopt rather less hyperbole. The over-close deadlines prevent a measured response which might actually achieve something and without ruining the global economy. One country which has cut carbon emissions over the past two decades (and without doing as Britain has done over that period by offshoring much of its energy-intensive heavy industry) is the US. How? By replacing much of its coal-fired electricity generation with plants which burn gas from fracking wells.

How ironic that it is the US which is seen as the international pariah of the climate change lobby while Germany, which is seen as a goody-goody nation, always willing to put its name to the latest treaty, has failed to cut its emissions. Germany's problem is that it is trying to leap to a low-carbon economy in one go, via solar and wind power while coal plants are maintained in order to make up the huge gap between the energy that green energy manages to produce and energy the country consumes."

Well natural gas definitely ain't the answer because everybody knows that fracking is super duper horribly evil. I mean, pumping a combination of water, sand, and chemicals into solid rock located 2 plus miles below surface and then pumping it back out again is going to totally ruin the world. It's especially bad for all the water tables located at 200 ft even though there's 2 miles of solid rock separating it from the rock where the frack is applied.

After all, it's #science bro.

quash said:

---

bularry said:

---

quash said:

---

midgett said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

..and we aren't going to do what needs to be done, because the political climate is much more important.

China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by us.

I had not thought I would see dramatic effects in my lifetime, since I will likely live another 30 years max. But it appears we all will.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.

---

I believe in climate change.

But your post is absurd.

First, to cry wolf yet again on an urgent 10 year pronouncement is why you and your Al Gore cohorts can't be taken seriously. You perpetuate the problem.

Using less inflammatory language would be a good start.

They will not be significant changes in the next decade.

Here's the problem. Any current solution has TWO YUGE drawbacks. First, almost any solution will increase costs to consumers especially if you immediately ban coal. Sure, Al Gore and you can afford higher energy costs. But it'd be yet another burden liberals stick to poor people. Second, if all Americans take the expensive measures to battle climate change, it becomes naught due to the emissions from so many emerging economies which we can't force to pay.

The good news to me is that we are finally beginning to see solar energy becoming affordable. Self driving cars have the potential to dramatically reduce the use of fuel. Many people may find it feasible to not own an automobile.

I do believe the ingenuity present in a capitalist economy will lead to better, affordable alternative solutions. Create a market and become fabulously famous and wealthy.

I don't know the answers but I'm not going to stick the poor with higher costs just to make me feel better about myself.

---

We can reduce carbon emissions by 85% in 10 years with no new laws, no new tech, and grow the economy by $5 trillion. With a t.

And there will be new tech.

It won't be apocalyptic predictions that causes change, it will be the market. Now China, as noted above, can make political changes but the market will drive even Chinese political decisions.

---

you over estimate the "market" and its power and don't acknowledge the million of factors that impact "the market" that are political/social

---

Excuse me for being a capitalist.

---

Billable hours = posting on Sic'em

Capitalism is awesome!!!

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

bularry said:

---

quash said:

---

midgett said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

..and we aren't going to do what needs to be done, because the political climate is much more important.

China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by us.

I had not thought I would see dramatic effects in my lifetime, since I will likely live another 30 years max. But it appears we all will.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.

---

I believe in climate change.

But your post is absurd.

First, to cry wolf yet again on an urgent 10 year pronouncement is why you and your Al Gore cohorts can't be taken seriously. You perpetuate the problem.

Using less inflammatory language would be a good start.

They will not be significant changes in the next decade.

Here's the problem. Any current solution has TWO YUGE drawbacks. First, almost any solution will increase costs to consumers especially if you immediately ban coal. Sure, Al Gore and you can afford higher energy costs. But it'd be yet another burden liberals stick to poor people. Second, if all Americans take the expensive measures to battle climate change, it becomes naught due to the emissions from so many emerging economies which we can't force to pay.

The good news to me is that we are finally beginning to see solar energy becoming affordable. Self driving cars have the potential to dramatically reduce the use of fuel. Many people may find it feasible to not own an automobile.

I do believe the ingenuity present in a capitalist economy will lead to better, affordable alternative solutions. Create a market and become fabulously famous and wealthy.

I don't know the answers but I'm not going to stick the poor with higher costs just to make me feel better about myself.

---

We can reduce carbon emissions by 85% in 10 years with no new laws, no new tech, and grow the economy by $5 trillion. With a t.

And there will be new tech.

It won't be apocalyptic predictions that causes change, it will be the market. Now China, as noted above, can make political changes but the market will drive even Chinese political decisions.

---

you over estimate the "market" and its power and don't acknowledge the million of factors that impact "the market" that are political/social

---

Excuse me for being a capitalist.

---

Billable hours = posting on Sic'em

Capitalism is awesome!!!

---

I turn off TimeSlips before I post. One of the benefits of capitalism is more leisure time.

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

bularry said:

---

quash said:

---

midgett said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

..and we aren't going to do what needs to be done, because the political climate is much more important.

China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by us.

I had not thought I would see dramatic effects in my lifetime, since I will likely live another 30 years max. But it appears we all will.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.

---

I believe in climate change.

But your post is absurd.

First, to cry wolf yet again on an urgent 10 year pronouncement is why you and your Al Gore cohorts can't be taken seriously. You perpetuate the problem.

Using less inflammatory language would be a good start.

They will not be significant changes in the next decade.

Here's the problem. Any current solution has TWO YUGE drawbacks. First, almost any solution will increase costs to consumers especially if you immediately ban coal. Sure, Al Gore and you can afford higher energy costs. But it'd be yet another burden liberals stick to poor people. Second, if all Americans take the expensive measures to battle climate change, it becomes naught due to the emissions from so many emerging economies which we can't force to pay.

The good news to me is that we are finally beginning to see solar energy becoming affordable. Self driving cars have the potential to dramatically reduce the use of fuel. Many people may find it feasible to not own an automobile.

I do believe the ingenuity present in a capitalist economy will lead to better, affordable alternative solutions. Create a market and become fabulously famous and wealthy.

I don't know the answers but I'm not going to stick the poor with higher costs just to make me feel better about myself.

---

We can reduce carbon emissions by 85% in 10 years with no new laws, no new tech, and grow the economy by $5 trillion. With a t.

And there will be new tech.

It won't be apocalyptic predictions that causes change, it will be the market. Now China, as noted above, can make political changes but the market will drive even Chinese political decisions.

---

you over estimate the "market" and its power and don't acknowledge the million of factors that impact "the market" that are political/social

---

Excuse me for being a capitalist.

---

Billable hours = posting on Sic'em

Capitalism is awesome!!!

---

I turn off TimeSlips before I post. One of the benefits of capitalism is more leisure time.

---

just jacking with you ; )

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

So a bunch of fad diets is the best example y'all have for science frauds?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Science can get things wrong. News reports hype one way or the other, with none of the caveats in the original scientific journal article. Replication either happens or it doesn't and therefore science advances.

---

Scientist laughed at the very idea of continental drift. Then came plate tectonics.

Scientists scoffed at the idea of Glacial Lake Missoula. Then an upstart analyzed the scab lands.

Scientists ridiculed the very idea of germ theory.

Science can't replicate any of the above, but now they are well settled.

---

Not one of those is a consensus hoax. Doc says there are lots of them. Y'all haven't shown me any. Scientific wrong turns? Sure. But Doc claimed hoaxes. Lots of them.

---

When the examples I listed were first proffered, they were considered shams and rejected by the science establishment.

Not sure what a consensus 'hoax' is. Maybe cranberries causing cancer?

Fifty-six Years Ago This Month, Americans Panicked Over Cranberries: the anniversary of the first carcinogen panic of the last century In 1999, we published the first edition of our classic cancer-scare compendium, "Facts vs. Fears: A Review of the Greatest Unfounded Health Scares of Recent Times." But the Great Cranberry Scare, which created havoc at the worst possible time, remains #1 on the list even today. Our initial booklet covered twenty scares. Unfortunately, too few among the public and the media paid sufficient attention, as the number of health scares in the latest edition of our publication (2004) ballooned to 28.

In November 1959, just days before Thanksgiving, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (the agency that preceded Health and Human Services), Arthur Fleming, set off a national food panic when he announced that domestic cranberry products were contaminated with a weed-killer called aminotriazole. Aminotriazole is a chemical that in huge doses the equivalent of eating 15,000 pounds of cranberries every day for several years was found to cause cancer in laboratory rodents. As a result of the federal warning, schools discarded cranberry products, restaurants changed their menus, supermarkets suspended sales and millions of Americans had Thanksgiving dinner without cranberry sauce. The cranberry scare of 1959 set the stage for decades of completely unnecessary anxiety about trace levels of agricultural chemicals and additives in food, noted Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan in "Facts vs. Fears." Dr. Whelan, the president of ACSH, and a co-founder of our organization, passed away in September of 2014. An important catalyst in the 1959 cranberry scare was the Delaney Clause, a 1958 amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that banned from food any artificial substance that could be shown to cause cancer in lab animals. What the Delaney Clause fails to recognize, explained Dr. Whelan is that lab animals are not little humans. The Delaney Clause also overlooks the fact that many natural substances safely consumed by Americans every day are also high-dose animal carcinogens, added Dr. Whelan. (Our "Holiday Dinner Menu" expands cogently and clearly on this topic). While animal studies play an important role in identifying potentially toxic or cancer-causing substances (carcinogens), their results often found at extraordinarily high doses cannot be directly applied to humans.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2015/11/23/the-first-great-chemical-cancer-scare-cranberries-thanksgiving-1959

---

Consensus hoax is Doc's term, still waiting on him to support it.

---

Sure, no problem: I define consensus hoax as fake science pushed through and then accepted for any duration of time.

1.) Piltdown Man

The Piltdown Man is a famous hoax in which pieces of a skull and jawbone found in 1912 were believed to be the fossilized remains of an early form of human being. The specimen was officially given a latin name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni) after its collector Charles Dawson. In 1953 it was exposed to be a fraud consisting of the jawbone of an orangutan and the skull of a fully developed adult man.

The Piltdown hoax is probably the most famous hoax in history. It has become so well known for two reasons: the attention it brought to the issue of evolution, and the length of time (over 40 years) that it took for anyone to discover it was a fraud.

2.) The Sokal Affair

The Sokal affair was a hoax by Alan Sokal (a physicist) perpetrated on the postmodern cultural studies journal Social Text (published by Duke University). In 1996, he submitted a paper of nonsense camouflaged in jargon to see if the journal would "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."

The paper, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", was published in "Science Wars" that year. On the day of publication, Sokal announced (in a different paper,) that the article was a hoax. He said that Social Text was "a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense". Much heated debate followed, especially regarding academic ethics.

Another recent example of this same situation is the 2005 Rooter Paper; this was a paper randomly generated by a computer which was submitted and consequently approved as legitimate to a scientific conference.

3.) Lamarckian Inheritance

During the 1920s an Austrian scientist named Paul Kammerer designed an experiment to prove that Lamarckian inheritance (the notion that organisms may acquire characteristics and pass them to their offspring) was possible. His experiment involved a species of toad called the Midwife Toad. Most toads mate in water resulting in scaly black bumps on their hindlimbs which allow them to hold on to each other during mating, but the midwife toad mates on land and therefore does not have these lumps. Kammerer said that by forcing midwife toads to mate in water, he could prove that they would develop the same bumps.

Kammerer mated a number of generations of toads in a fishtank full of water. Eventually he announced that he had succeeded and he presented a group of midwife toads with black bumps on their hindlimbs.

However, in 1926, Dr G. K. Noble studied the famous toads and discovered that the black bumps were in fact ink that had been injected in to the hind legs of the toads. When the fraud was unveiled in 1926, Kammerer was humiliated. He insisted that he had not injected ink into the toads and suggested that one of his lab assistants might have done it. Kammerer committed suicide a few days later.

4.) The Great Moon Hoax

In August, 1835, a series of articles appeared on the front page of the New York Sun. The articles listed a series of incredible astronomical breakthroughs that the British Astronomer, Sir John Herschel, had made using a unique large telescope and special methods. The article said that Herschel had developed a "new theory of cometary phenomena"; he had discovered planets in other star systems; and he had "solved or corrected nearly every leading problem of mathematical astronomy." The article then mentioned Herschel's most stunning achievement: he had discovered intelligent life on the moon.

He described vast forests, seas, and lilac-colored pyramids on the surface of the moon. He described herds of bison that wandered the plains and blue unicorns which lived on the hilltops.

The article was, of course, a very elaborate hoax. Herschel had not really observed life on the moon, nor had he accomplished any of the other astronomical breakthroughs credited to him in the article. In fact, it later turned out that Herschel was not even aware of many of the discoveries attributed to him.

Despite this, the Sun continued to publish copies of the article before the public realized it was a hoax.

5.) Discoveries of Shinichi Fujimura

Shinichi Fujimura was one of Japan's leading archaeologists despite being self-taught. In 1981 he made his first discovery of stoneware that dated back 40,000 years. It was the oldest stoneware ever found in Japan and this discovery launched his career. During the following years he discovered older and older artifacts that pushed the limits of Japan's known pre-history.

On October, 2000, Fujimara discovered a cluster of stone pieces that they believed to have been made by primitive people; they also found several holes that they claimed were to hold supports for primitive dwellings. The find was believed to be over 600,000 years old making the oldest signs of human habitation in the world. This lead to international coverage.

Then, on November 5, the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper published three photos on the front page, which showed Fujimara digging holes at the site and burying the artifacts that he later dug up (see image above). At a press conference that day he admitted that he had planted the stones and had faked most of his discoveries. With his head bowed in shame, he said: "I was tempted by the Devil."

6.) The Tasaday Tribe

In 1971, a Philippine government minister (Manuel Elizalde) discovered a small stone age tribe living in isolation on the island of Mindanao. This tribe, called the Tasaday, spoke a strong language, used stone tools, and exhibited other stone-age attributes. Their discovery made television headlines, the cover of National Geographic, and was the subject of a bestselling book. When anthropologists tried to get a better look at the tribe, President Marcos declared the land a reserve and made it off-limits to all visitors.

When Marcos was deposed in 1986, two journalists visited the site and found that the Tasaday in fact lived in houses, traded with the local farmers, wore jeans and t-shirts and spoke a modern local dialect. The Tasadays explained that they had moved in the caves and behaved in a stone-age manner because of pressure from Elizalde. Elizalde had fled the country in 1983 with millions of dollars he had stolen from a foundation set up to protect the Tasaday people.

7.) The Lying Stones

In 1726, Johann Beringer of Wrzburg published details of fossils found outside the Bavarian town. These included "lizards in their skin, birds with beaks and eyes, spiders with their webs, and frogs copulating." Other stones he found bore the Hebrew letters YHVH, for Jehovah, or God. He believed them to be natural products of the "plastic power" of the inorganic world, and said so in a book.

In fact, they had been planted fraudulently by spiteful colleagues. The legend is that Beringer impoverished himself trying to buy back all copies of his book, and the finds became known as lgensteine, or "lying stones". The colleagues who perpetrated the hoax lost their jobs and reputations over the scandal.

8.) The Perpetual Motion Machine

Cars that run on water and fusion machines that generate more energy than they use are staples of inventors' fantasy. They pop up all the time. Charles Redheffer raised large sums of money in Philadelphia with a perpetual motion machine and then took it to New York in 1813, where hundreds paid a dollar each to see it.

It did, indeed, seem to keep itself turning. In the end, skeptics offered a large sum of money to "prove" that the machine was in fact a fraud. Redheffer took the money and the skeptics removed some wooden strips along the wall from the machine. When they did so, they found a cat-gut belt drive, which went through a wall to an attic where an old man was turning a crank with one hand, and eating a loaf of bread with the other.

9.) The Cardiff Giant

The Cardiff Giant is one of the most famous hoaxes in American history. It was a 3 meter (10 foot) petrified body of a man. It was discovered in 1869 by a team of workers digging a well behind the home of William Newell in Cardiff, New York. As it turns out, the giant was the creation of a New Yorker named George Hull, an atheist, who decided to create the giant as a joke on fundamentalist minister Mr Turk who believed that the Bible told of literal giants who roamed the earth.

The giant became so popular that P T Barnum offered $60,000 for a 3 month lease of it. He was turned down so he had a replica made which he put on display. When his replica became more popular than the original, the owner of the "authentic" fake tried to sue Barnum. The judge threw the lawsuit out stating that unless the original could be proven to be real, there was nothing wrong with Barnum producing his own fake.

10.) Jan Hendrik Schn

Jan Henrik Schn (pictured on the left), a researcher at Bell Laboratories in New Jersey, had five papers published in Nature and seven in the journal Science between 1998 and 2001, dealing with advanced aspects of electronics. The discoveries were abstruse, but he was seen by many of his peers as a rising star.

In 2002, a committee found that he had made up his results on at least 16 occasions, resulting in the public embarrassment of his colleagues, his employer, and the editorial staffs of both the journals that accepted his results.

Schn, who by then was still only 32, said: "I have to admit that I made various mistakes in my scientific work, which I deeply regret." Nature also reported him as adding in a statement, "I truly believe that the reported scientific effects are real, exciting and worth working for." He would say no more.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

So a bunch of fad diets is the best example y'all have for science frauds?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Science can get things wrong. News reports hype one way or the other, with none of the caveats in the original scientific journal article. Replication either happens or it doesn't and therefore science advances.

---

Scientist laughed at the very idea of continental drift. Then came plate tectonics.

Scientists scoffed at the idea of Glacial Lake Missoula. Then an upstart analyzed the scab lands.

Scientists ridiculed the very idea of germ theory.

Science can't replicate any of the above, but now they are well settled.

---

Not one of those is a consensus hoax. Doc says there are lots of them. Y'all haven't shown me any. Scientific wrong turns? Sure. But Doc claimed hoaxes. Lots of them.

---

When the examples I listed were first proffered, they were considered shams and rejected by the science establishment.

Not sure what a consensus 'hoax' is. Maybe cranberries causing cancer?

Fifty-six Years Ago This Month, Americans Panicked Over Cranberries: the anniversary of the first carcinogen panic of the last century In 1999, we published the first edition of our classic cancer-scare compendium, "Facts vs. Fears: A Review of the Greatest Unfounded Health Scares of Recent Times." But the Great Cranberry Scare, which created havoc at the worst possible time, remains #1 on the list even today. Our initial booklet covered twenty scares. Unfortunately, too few among the public and the media paid sufficient attention, as the number of health scares in the latest edition of our publication (2004) ballooned to 28.

In November 1959, just days before Thanksgiving, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (the agency that preceded Health and Human Services), Arthur Fleming, set off a national food panic when he announced that domestic cranberry products were contaminated with a weed-killer called aminotriazole. Aminotriazole is a chemical that in huge doses the equivalent of eating 15,000 pounds of cranberries every day for several years was found to cause cancer in laboratory rodents. As a result of the federal warning, schools discarded cranberry products, restaurants changed their menus, supermarkets suspended sales and millions of Americans had Thanksgiving dinner without cranberry sauce. The cranberry scare of 1959 set the stage for decades of completely unnecessary anxiety about trace levels of agricultural chemicals and additives in food, noted Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan in "Facts vs. Fears." Dr. Whelan, the president of ACSH, and a co-founder of our organization, passed away in September of 2014. An important catalyst in the 1959 cranberry scare was the Delaney Clause, a 1958 amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that banned from food any artificial substance that could be shown to cause cancer in lab animals. What the Delaney Clause fails to recognize, explained Dr. Whelan is that lab animals are not little humans. The Delaney Clause also overlooks the fact that many natural substances safely consumed by Americans every day are also high-dose animal carcinogens, added Dr. Whelan. (Our "Holiday Dinner Menu" expands cogently and clearly on this topic). While animal studies play an important role in identifying potentially toxic or cancer-causing substances (carcinogens), their results often found at extraordinarily high doses cannot be directly applied to humans.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2015/11/23/the-first-great-chemical-cancer-scare-cranberries-thanksgiving-1959

---

Consensus hoax is Doc's term, still waiting on him to support it.

---

Sure, no problem: I define consensus hoax as fake science pushed through and then accepted for any duration of time.

1.) Piltdown Man

The Piltdown Man is a famous hoax in which pieces of a skull and jawbone found in 1912 were believed to be the fossilized remains of an early form of human being. The specimen was officially given a latin name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni) after its collector Charles Dawson. In 1953 it was exposed to be a fraud consisting of the jawbone of an orangutan and the skull of a fully developed adult man.

The Piltdown hoax is probably the most famous hoax in history. It has become so well known for two reasons: the attention it brought to the issue of evolution, and the length of time (over 40 years) that it took for anyone to discover it was a fraud.

2.) The Sokal Affair

The Sokal affair was a hoax by Alan Sokal (a physicist) perpetrated on the postmodern cultural studies journal Social Text (published by Duke University). In 1996, he submitted a paper of nonsense camouflaged in jargon to see if the journal would "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."

The paper, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", was published in "Science Wars" that year. On the day of publication, Sokal announced (in a different paper,) that the article was a hoax. He said that Social Text was "a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense". Much heated debate followed, especially regarding academic ethics.

Another recent example of this same situation is the 2005 Rooter Paper; this was a paper randomly generated by a computer which was submitted and consequently approved as legitimate to a scientific conference.

3.) Lamarckian Inheritance

During the 1920s an Austrian scientist named Paul Kammerer designed an experiment to prove that Lamarckian inheritance (the notion that organisms may acquire characteristics and pass them to their offspring) was possible. His experiment involved a species of toad called the Midwife Toad. Most toads mate in water resulting in scaly black bumps on their hindlimbs which allow them to hold on to each other during mating, but the midwife toad mates on land and therefore does not have these lumps. Kammerer said that by forcing midwife toads to mate in water, he could prove that they would develop the same bumps.

Kammerer mated a number of generations of toads in a fishtank full of water. Eventually he announced that he had succeeded and he presented a group of midwife toads with black bumps on their hindlimbs.

However, in 1926, Dr G. K. Noble studied the famous toads and discovered that the black bumps were in fact ink that had been injected in to the hind legs of the toads. When the fraud was unveiled in 1926, Kammerer was humiliated. He insisted that he had not injected ink into the toads and suggested that one of his lab assistants might have done it. Kammerer committed suicide a few days later.

4.) The Great Moon Hoax

In August, 1835, a series of articles appeared on the front page of the New York Sun. The articles listed a series of incredible astronomical breakthroughs that the British Astronomer, Sir John Herschel, had made using a unique large telescope and special methods. The article said that Herschel had developed a "new theory of cometary phenomena"; he had discovered planets in other star systems; and he had "solved or corrected nearly every leading problem of mathematical astronomy." The article then mentioned Herschel's most stunning achievement: he had discovered intelligent life on the moon.

He described vast forests, seas, and lilac-colored pyramids on the surface of the moon. He described herds of bison that wandered the plains and blue unicorns which lived on the hilltops.

The article was, of course, a very elaborate hoax. Herschel had not really observed life on the moon, nor had he accomplished any of the other astronomical breakthroughs credited to him in the article. In fact, it later turned out that Herschel was not even aware of many of the discoveries attributed to him.

Despite this, the Sun continued to publish copies of the article before the public realized it was a hoax.

5.) Discoveries of Shinichi Fujimura

Shinichi Fujimura was one of Japan's leading archaeologists despite being self-taught. In 1981 he made his first discovery of stoneware that dated back 40,000 years. It was the oldest stoneware ever found in Japan and this discovery launched his career. During the following years he discovered older and older artifacts that pushed the limits of Japan's known pre-history.

On October, 2000, Fujimara discovered a cluster of stone pieces that they believed to have been made by primitive people; they also found several holes that they claimed were to hold supports for primitive dwellings. The find was believed to be over 600,000 years old making the oldest signs of human habitation in the world. This lead to international coverage.

Then, on November 5, the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper published three photos on the front page, which showed Fujimara digging holes at the site and burying the artifacts that he later dug up (see image above). At a press conference that day he admitted that he had planted the stones and had faked most of his discoveries. With his head bowed in shame, he said: "I was tempted by the Devil."

6.) The Tasaday Tribe

In 1971, a Philippine government minister (Manuel Elizalde) discovered a small stone age tribe living in isolation on the island of Mindanao. This tribe, called the Tasaday, spoke a strong language, used stone tools, and exhibited other stone-age attributes. Their discovery made television headlines, the cover of National Geographic, and was the subject of a bestselling book. When anthropologists tried to get a better look at the tribe, President Marcos declared the land a reserve and made it off-limits to all visitors.

When Marcos was deposed in 1986, two journalists visited the site and found that the Tasaday in fact lived in houses, traded with the local farmers, wore jeans and t-shirts and spoke a modern local dialect. The Tasadays explained that they had moved in the caves and behaved in a stone-age manner because of pressure from Elizalde. Elizalde had fled the country in 1983 with millions of dollars he had stolen from a foundation set up to protect the Tasaday people.

7.) The Lying Stones

In 1726, Johann Beringer of Wrzburg published details of fossils found outside the Bavarian town. These included "lizards in their skin, birds with beaks and eyes, spiders with their webs, and frogs copulating." Other stones he found bore the Hebrew letters YHVH, for Jehovah, or God. He believed them to be natural products of the "plastic power" of the inorganic world, and said so in a book.

In fact, they had been planted fraudulently by spiteful colleagues. The legend is that Beringer impoverished himself trying to buy back all copies of his book, and the finds became known as lgensteine, or "lying stones". The colleagues who perpetrated the hoax lost their jobs and reputations over the scandal.

8.) The Perpetual Motion Machine

Cars that run on water and fusion machines that generate more energy than they use are staples of inventors' fantasy. They pop up all the time. Charles Redheffer raised large sums of money in Philadelphia with a perpetual motion machine and then took it to New York in 1813, where hundreds paid a dollar each to see it.

It did, indeed, seem to keep itself turning. In the end, skeptics offered a large sum of money to "prove" that the machine was in fact a fraud. Redheffer took the money and the skeptics removed some wooden strips along the wall from the machine. When they did so, they found a cat-gut belt drive, which went through a wall to an attic where an old man was turning a crank with one hand, and eating a loaf of bread with the other.

9.) The Cardiff Giant

The Cardiff Giant is one of the most famous hoaxes in American history. It was a 3 meter (10 foot) petrified body of a man. It was discovered in 1869 by a team of workers digging a well behind the home of William Newell in Cardiff, New York. As it turns out, the giant was the creation of a New Yorker named George Hull, an atheist, who decided to create the giant as a joke on fundamentalist minister Mr Turk who believed that the Bible told of literal giants who roamed the earth.

The giant became so popular that P T Barnum offered $60,000 for a 3 month lease of it. He was turned down so he had a replica made which he put on display. When his replica became more popular than the original, the owner of the "authentic" fake tried to sue Barnum. The judge threw the lawsuit out stating that unless the original could be proven to be real, there was nothing wrong with Barnum producing his own fake.

10.) Jan Hendrik Schn

Jan Henrik Schn (pictured on the left), a researcher at Bell Laboratories in New Jersey, had five papers published in Nature and seven in the journal Science between 1998 and 2001, dealing with advanced aspects of electronics. The discoveries were abstruse, but he was seen by many of his peers as a rising star.

In 2002, a committee found that he had made up his results on at least 16 occasions, resulting in the public embarrassment of his colleagues, his employer, and the editorial staffs of both the journals that accepted his results.

Schn, who by then was still only 32, said: "I have to admit that I made various mistakes in my scientific work, which I deeply regret." Nature also reported him as adding in a statement, "I truly believe that the reported scientific effects are real, exciting and worth working for." He would say no more.

---

So, nothing? Your definition walks back a good bit from your starting point.

You said scientists were behind a consensus hoax regarding global warming. That would mean that scientists, by consensus, knew the falsity and still held it out as true. I don't blame you for ducking.

Wow. I read through all of this and still don't care.

fadskier said:

---

Wow. I read through all of this and still don't care.

---

there's a shallow CAT dug trench waiting for you!... you Trumpladyte

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

So a bunch of fad diets is the best example y'all have for science frauds?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Science can get things wrong. News reports hype one way or the other, with none of the caveats in the original scientific journal article. Replication either happens or it doesn't and therefore science advances.

---

Scientist laughed at the very idea of continental drift. Then came plate tectonics.

Scientists scoffed at the idea of Glacial Lake Missoula. Then an upstart analyzed the scab lands.

Scientists ridiculed the very idea of germ theory.

Science can't replicate any of the above, but now they are well settled.

---

Not one of those is a consensus hoax. Doc says there are lots of them. Y'all haven't shown me any. Scientific wrong turns? Sure. But Doc claimed hoaxes. Lots of them.

---

When the examples I listed were first proffered, they were considered shams and rejected by the science establishment.

Not sure what a consensus 'hoax' is. Maybe cranberries causing cancer?

Fifty-six Years Ago This Month, Americans Panicked Over Cranberries: the anniversary of the first carcinogen panic of the last century In 1999, we published the first edition of our classic cancer-scare compendium, "Facts vs. Fears: A Review of the Greatest Unfounded Health Scares of Recent Times." But the Great Cranberry Scare, which created havoc at the worst possible time, remains #1 on the list even today. Our initial booklet covered twenty scares. Unfortunately, too few among the public and the media paid sufficient attention, as the number of health scares in the latest edition of our publication (2004) ballooned to 28.

In November 1959, just days before Thanksgiving, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (the agency that preceded Health and Human Services), Arthur Fleming, set off a national food panic when he announced that domestic cranberry products were contaminated with a weed-killer called aminotriazole. Aminotriazole is a chemical that in huge doses the equivalent of eating 15,000 pounds of cranberries every day for several years was found to cause cancer in laboratory rodents. As a result of the federal warning, schools discarded cranberry products, restaurants changed their menus, supermarkets suspended sales and millions of Americans had Thanksgiving dinner without cranberry sauce. The cranberry scare of 1959 set the stage for decades of completely unnecessary anxiety about trace levels of agricultural chemicals and additives in food, noted Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan in "Facts vs. Fears." Dr. Whelan, the president of ACSH, and a co-founder of our organization, passed away in September of 2014. An important catalyst in the 1959 cranberry scare was the Delaney Clause, a 1958 amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that banned from food any artificial substance that could be shown to cause cancer in lab animals. What the Delaney Clause fails to recognize, explained Dr. Whelan is that lab animals are not little humans. The Delaney Clause also overlooks the fact that many natural substances safely consumed by Americans every day are also high-dose animal carcinogens, added Dr. Whelan. (Our "Holiday Dinner Menu" expands cogently and clearly on this topic). While animal studies play an important role in identifying potentially toxic or cancer-causing substances (carcinogens), their results often found at extraordinarily high doses cannot be directly applied to humans.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2015/11/23/the-first-great-chemical-cancer-scare-cranberries-thanksgiving-1959

---

Consensus hoax is Doc's term, still waiting on him to support it.

---

Sure, no problem: I define consensus hoax as fake science pushed through and then accepted for any duration of time.

1.) Piltdown Man

The Piltdown Man is a famous hoax in which pieces of a skull and jawbone found in 1912 were believed to be the fossilized remains of an early form of human being. The specimen was officially given a latin name (Eoanthropus Dawsoni) after its collector Charles Dawson. In 1953 it was exposed to be a fraud consisting of the jawbone of an orangutan and the skull of a fully developed adult man.

The Piltdown hoax is probably the most famous hoax in history. It has become so well known for two reasons: the attention it brought to the issue of evolution, and the length of time (over 40 years) that it took for anyone to discover it was a fraud.

2.) The Sokal Affair

The Sokal affair was a hoax by Alan Sokal (a physicist) perpetrated on the postmodern cultural studies journal Social Text (published by Duke University). In 1996, he submitted a paper of nonsense camouflaged in jargon to see if the journal would "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."

The paper, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", was published in "Science Wars" that year. On the day of publication, Sokal announced (in a different paper,) that the article was a hoax. He said that Social Text was "a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense". Much heated debate followed, especially regarding academic ethics.

Another recent example of this same situation is the 2005 Rooter Paper; this was a paper randomly generated by a computer which was submitted and consequently approved as legitimate to a scientific conference.

3.) Lamarckian Inheritance

During the 1920s an Austrian scientist named Paul Kammerer designed an experiment to prove that Lamarckian inheritance (the notion that organisms may acquire characteristics and pass them to their offspring) was possible. His experiment involved a species of toad called the Midwife Toad. Most toads mate in water resulting in scaly black bumps on their hindlimbs which allow them to hold on to each other during mating, but the midwife toad mates on land and therefore does not have these lumps. Kammerer said that by forcing midwife toads to mate in water, he could prove that they would develop the same bumps.

Kammerer mated a number of generations of toads in a fishtank full of water. Eventually he announced that he had succeeded and he presented a group of midwife toads with black bumps on their hindlimbs.

However, in 1926, Dr G. K. Noble studied the famous toads and discovered that the black bumps were in fact ink that had been injected in to the hind legs of the toads. When the fraud was unveiled in 1926, Kammerer was humiliated. He insisted that he had not injected ink into the toads and suggested that one of his lab assistants might have done it. Kammerer committed suicide a few days later.

4.) The Great Moon Hoax

In August, 1835, a series of articles appeared on the front page of the New York Sun. The articles listed a series of incredible astronomical breakthroughs that the British Astronomer, Sir John Herschel, had made using a unique large telescope and special methods. The article said that Herschel had developed a "new theory of cometary phenomena"; he had discovered planets in other star systems; and he had "solved or corrected nearly every leading problem of mathematical astronomy." The article then mentioned Herschel's most stunning achievement: he had discovered intelligent life on the moon.

He described vast forests, seas, and lilac-colored pyramids on the surface of the moon. He described herds of bison that wandered the plains and blue unicorns which lived on the hilltops.

The article was, of course, a very elaborate hoax. Herschel had not really observed life on the moon, nor had he accomplished any of the other astronomical breakthroughs credited to him in the article. In fact, it later turned out that Herschel was not even aware of many of the discoveries attributed to him.

Despite this, the Sun continued to publish copies of the article before the public realized it was a hoax.

5.) Discoveries of Shinichi Fujimura

Shinichi Fujimura was one of Japan's leading archaeologists despite being self-taught. In 1981 he made his first discovery of stoneware that dated back 40,000 years. It was the oldest stoneware ever found in Japan and this discovery launched his career. During the following years he discovered older and older artifacts that pushed the limits of Japan's known pre-history.

On October, 2000, Fujimara discovered a cluster of stone pieces that they believed to have been made by primitive people; they also found several holes that they claimed were to hold supports for primitive dwellings. The find was believed to be over 600,000 years old making the oldest signs of human habitation in the world. This lead to international coverage.

Then, on November 5, the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper published three photos on the front page, which showed Fujimara digging holes at the site and burying the artifacts that he later dug up (see image above). At a press conference that day he admitted that he had planted the stones and had faked most of his discoveries. With his head bowed in shame, he said: "I was tempted by the Devil."

6.) The Tasaday Tribe

In 1971, a Philippine government minister (Manuel Elizalde) discovered a small stone age tribe living in isolation on the island of Mindanao. This tribe, called the Tasaday, spoke a strong language, used stone tools, and exhibited other stone-age attributes. Their discovery made television headlines, the cover of National Geographic, and was the subject of a bestselling book. When anthropologists tried to get a better look at the tribe, President Marcos declared the land a reserve and made it off-limits to all visitors.

When Marcos was deposed in 1986, two journalists visited the site and found that the Tasaday in fact lived in houses, traded with the local farmers, wore jeans and t-shirts and spoke a modern local dialect. The Tasadays explained that they had moved in the caves and behaved in a stone-age manner because of pressure from Elizalde. Elizalde had fled the country in 1983 with millions of dollars he had stolen from a foundation set up to protect the Tasaday people.

7.) The Lying Stones

In 1726, Johann Beringer of Wrzburg published details of fossils found outside the Bavarian town. These included "lizards in their skin, birds with beaks and eyes, spiders with their webs, and frogs copulating." Other stones he found bore the Hebrew letters YHVH, for Jehovah, or God. He believed them to be natural products of the "plastic power" of the inorganic world, and said so in a book.

In fact, they had been planted fraudulently by spiteful colleagues. The legend is that Beringer impoverished himself trying to buy back all copies of his book, and the finds became known as lgensteine, or "lying stones". The colleagues who perpetrated the hoax lost their jobs and reputations over the scandal.

8.) The Perpetual Motion Machine

Cars that run on water and fusion machines that generate more energy than they use are staples of inventors' fantasy. They pop up all the time. Charles Redheffer raised large sums of money in Philadelphia with a perpetual motion machine and then took it to New York in 1813, where hundreds paid a dollar each to see it.

It did, indeed, seem to keep itself turning. In the end, skeptics offered a large sum of money to "prove" that the machine was in fact a fraud. Redheffer took the money and the skeptics removed some wooden strips along the wall from the machine. When they did so, they found a cat-gut belt drive, which went through a wall to an attic where an old man was turning a crank with one hand, and eating a loaf of bread with the other.

9.) The Cardiff Giant

The Cardiff Giant is one of the most famous hoaxes in American history. It was a 3 meter (10 foot) petrified body of a man. It was discovered in 1869 by a team of workers digging a well behind the home of William Newell in Cardiff, New York. As it turns out, the giant was the creation of a New Yorker named George Hull, an atheist, who decided to create the giant as a joke on fundamentalist minister Mr Turk who believed that the Bible told of literal giants who roamed the earth.

The giant became so popular that P T Barnum offered $60,000 for a 3 month lease of it. He was turned down so he had a replica made which he put on display. When his replica became more popular than the original, the owner of the "authentic" fake tried to sue Barnum. The judge threw the lawsuit out stating that unless the original could be proven to be real, there was nothing wrong with Barnum producing his own fake.

10.) Jan Hendrik Schn

Jan Henrik Schn (pictured on the left), a researcher at Bell Laboratories in New Jersey, had five papers published in Nature and seven in the journal Science between 1998 and 2001, dealing with advanced aspects of electronics. The discoveries were abstruse, but he was seen by many of his peers as a rising star.

In 2002, a committee found that he had made up his results on at least 16 occasions, resulting in the public embarrassment of his colleagues, his employer, and the editorial staffs of both the journals that accepted his results.

Schn, who by then was still only 32, said: "I have to admit that I made various mistakes in my scientific work, which I deeply regret." Nature also reported him as adding in a statement, "I truly believe that the reported scientific effects are real, exciting and worth working for." He would say no more.

---

So, nothing? Your definition walks back a good bit from your starting point.

You said scientists were behind a consensus hoax regarding global warming. That would mean that scientists, by consensus, knew the falsity and still held it out as true. I don't blame you for ducking.

---

No, I've just given historical examples.

An example of global warming hoax: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

Scientists were fooled this very month. It happens all the time. These three people wrote papers of scientific nonsense that were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. ****in hilarious.

corncob pipe said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Wow. I read through all of this and still don't care.

---

there's a shallow CAT dug trench waiting for you!... you Trumpladyte

---

triggered much?

Gunny Hartman said:

---

Scientists were fooled this very month. It happens all the time. These three people wrote papers of scientific nonsense that were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. ****in hilarious.

---

Yeah, we already talked about these, a Sokal hoax to expose the drivel in grievance studies. The softest of the soft sciences.

Again, they aren't examples of what you originally claimed.

Except now your example is also your original claim. Remember when you had lots of examples of consensus hoaxes? I do.

fadskier said:

---

corncob pipe said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Wow. I read through all of this and still don't care.

---

there's a shallow CAT dug trench waiting for you!... you Trumpladyte

---

triggered much?

---

DEPLORABLE TRUMPET !!

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

What a 2C increase in average global temperature will do: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-report-half-degree.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

---

What, specifically, do you recommend?

---

First, let's get past the guys like Doc Holliday who think their observations of a melting ice cube in a water glass constitute authoritative scientific evidence that human activity--specifically, carbon emissions--isn't warming the planet really fast--to the point where some coastlines will be inundated and some island nations, like the Maldives, may no longer exist.

Along with the idiots who spout the 'climate has always changed" canard without also noting the fact that the planet has never before hosted the large a number of people, nor have the people living here had the technological means to heat and cool their homes and travel globally using carbon-based fuels. We are already at the point where we're going to kill the coral reefs, and we're also killing off the rain forests, which serve an important purpose in maintaining our atmosphere.

Then I'd like to hear recommendations from the guys with Ph.D.s who have concluded we're in big trouble about what we can do to stop emitting carbon at such high levels and what's not possible.

There are so many variables and so many things we don't know that scientists have already made one bad mistake--the effects are coming sooner rather than later. I will probably live at most another 30 years, and they will manifest during my lifetime. They are already in North Carolina and California.

Possibly the only positive in that is that all the conservatives who have claimed we're contending with normal variations in a planetary cycle are going to see how wrong they are before and realize how badly they've screwed their own kids and grandkids by their stubborness and selfishness. Or not. Some of these guys are hopeless.

As a small start, we COULD stop trying to resurrect the coal industry in the U.S. That's almost as dumb as building a wall.

---

Fair answer, but you can't expect me to sign a blank check. I'd like to know the economic effects, cost v benefit, probability of success, etc. before signing onto your program.

---

Regarding cost and benefit:

Quote:

---

By the 2070s, the IPCC--the U.N. climate change panel--estimates that warming will cost between 0.2 and 2 percent of global GDP. This is certainly a problem, but not the end of world.

Speaking of climate change in catastrophic terms easily makes us ignore bigger problems, including malnutrition, tuberculosis, malaria and corruption. The World Health Organization estimates that climate change since the 1970s causes about 140,000 additional deaths each year, and toward the middle of the century will kill 250,000 people annually, mostly in poor countries. This pales in comparison with much deadlier environmental problems such as indoor air pollution, claiming 4.3 million lives annually, outdoor air pollution killing 3.7 million and lack of water and sanitation killing 760,000. Outside of environment, the problems are even bigger: Poverty arguably kills 18 million each year.

Every dollar spent on climate change could instead help save many more people from these more tractable problems. The current approach to subsidize solar and wind arguably saves one life across the century for every $4 million dollars spent--the same expenditure on vaccinations could save 4,000 lives.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/09/19/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-lets-get-our-priorities-straight/?utm_term=.56605ed89254&noredirect=on

---

Regarding probability of success:

Quote:

---

How much do temperatures actually increase when atmospheric carbon dioxide increases? Scientists express this relationship as a measure of "equilibrium climate sensitivity," defined as how many degrees average global temperature will increase as a result of doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide. Virtually all the climate models used in the IPCC's worst-case predictions of dangerous global warming presume a worst-case scenario equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 3.0 to 3.5 degrees Celsius. But leading IPCC scientists have concluded that if humans were responsible for all observed warming since 1971, the ECS would be around 2.0 degrees Celsius. And if humans are only responsible for about half of the observed warming, as the IPCC itself admits is quite possible, that implies an ECS closer to 1.0 degrees Celsius.

A reliable figure for ECS continues to elude our grasp, but with an ECS of 1.0 degrees Celsius, the case for sweeping reductions in carbon emissions is greatly weakened. At that level of climate sensitivity, even if carbon dioxide emissions continue to increase unabated, temperatures would increase significantly less than the stated goal of the IPCC's, which is warming of no more than two degrees Celsius by 2100. (This may explain why the Paris agreement moved the goalposts to a new goal of less than 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100). But in that case, IPCC's worst-case scenario would then be non-catastrophic by the IPCC's own definition.

The policy implications are dramatic. Under this scenario, which lies well within the IPCC's forecast, even dramatic reductions in carbon dioxide emissions would have no measurable impact on temperatures. And the natural factors responsible for as much as half the recently observed warming would presumably continue warming the planet, oblivious to any reduction in carbon emissions.

The key point is this: The IPCC's latest "attribution statement" (extreme confidence that more than half the observed warming is due to humans) would be correct even if ECS is only 1.0 degrees Celsius and expected increases in carbon dioxide pose essentially no risk of catastrophic climate change.

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/03/31/twilight-of-the-climate-change-movement/

---

---

Overall a pretty good article that fairly assesses the question in light of current data. Is global warming impacted by man? The answer without a doubt is yes. However, climate change on this planet is a given, regardless of human activity. The question is to what extent is change man induced? By some studies of global climate cycles, we are due to enter into a period of global cooling, or new ice age. To what extent will factors driving the warming trend mitigate factors of global cooling? On the other hand, should we do what we can to mitigate our impact on climate change, in light of a cost benefit analysis, as suggested in the article? Probably yes. As the article suggests, there are more critical issues of survivability which we are faced with that merit our attention, where we are failing. We are in the midst of what appears to be a continuance of a worldwide mass extinction of species that is increasing and is man induced. The end result of that has far more reaching consequences for disrupting an environment capable of sustaining our species. As pointed out in the article, our unabated population growth, and our destruction and disregard of ecosystems, other species and the overall environment is far more critical to our own survival. Climate is cyclical, and in many instances driven by factors we cannot control as of yet. However, we can do something about the environment, and protecting and rehabilitating ecosystems and other species.

BTW - the meat and dairy industry around the world is responsible by far for more greenhouse gas emissions than the fossil fuel industry. What we eat is literally killing us and driving western health care costs through the roof. Adopting a whole food, plant based diet, would eliminate the excessive greenhouse gas emissions, and would eliminate most heart disease, strokes, Type 2 diabetes, and many cancers and chronic diseases common to Americans and those who eat the standard American diet. It would bring an end to the health care crisis and associated runaway medical costs we are experiencing in western civilization.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

What a 2C increase in average global temperature will do: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-report-half-degree.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

---

What, specifically, do you recommend?

---

First, let's get past the guys like Doc Holliday who think their observations of a melting ice cube in a water glass constitute authoritative scientific evidence that human activity--specifically, carbon emissions--isn't warming the planet really fast--to the point where some coastlines will be inundated and some island nations, like the Maldives, may no longer exist.

Along with the idiots who spout the 'climate has always changed" canard without also noting the fact that the planet has never before hosted the large a number of people, nor have the people living here had the technological means to heat and cool their homes and travel globally using carbon-based fuels. We are already at the point where we're going to kill the coral reefs, and we're also killing off the rain forests, which serve an important purpose in maintaining our atmosphere.

Then I'd like to hear recommendations from the guys with Ph.D.s who have concluded we're in big trouble about what we can do to stop emitting carbon at such high levels and what's not possible.

There are so many variables and so many things we don't know that scientists have already made one bad mistake--the effects are coming sooner rather than later. I will probably live at most another 30 years, and they will manifest during my lifetime. They are already in North Carolina and California.

Possibly the only positive in that is that all the conservatives who have claimed we're contending with normal variations in a planetary cycle are going to see how wrong they are before and realize how badly they've screwed their own kids and grandkids by their stubborness and selfishness. Or not. Some of these guys are hopeless.

As a small start, we COULD stop trying to resurrect the coal industry in the U.S. That's almost as dumb as building a wall.

---

Fair answer, but you can't expect me to sign a blank check. I'd like to know the economic effects, cost v benefit, probability of success, etc. before signing onto your program.

---

Regarding cost and benefit:

Quote:

---

By the 2070s, the IPCC--the U.N. climate change panel--estimates that warming will cost between 0.2 and 2 percent of global GDP. This is certainly a problem, but not the end of world.

Speaking of climate change in catastrophic terms easily makes us ignore bigger problems, including malnutrition, tuberculosis, malaria and corruption. The World Health Organization estimates that climate change since the 1970s causes about 140,000 additional deaths each year, and toward the middle of the century will kill 250,000 people annually, mostly in poor countries. This pales in comparison with much deadlier environmental problems such as indoor air pollution, claiming 4.3 million lives annually, outdoor air pollution killing 3.7 million and lack of water and sanitation killing 760,000. Outside of environment, the problems are even bigger: Poverty arguably kills 18 million each year.

Every dollar spent on climate change could instead help save many more people from these more tractable problems. The current approach to subsidize solar and wind arguably saves one life across the century for every $4 million dollars spent--the same expenditure on vaccinations could save 4,000 lives.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/09/19/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-lets-get-our-priorities-straight/?utm_term=.56605ed89254&noredirect=on

---

Regarding probability of success:

Quote:

---

How much do temperatures actually increase when atmospheric carbon dioxide increases? Scientists express this relationship as a measure of "equilibrium climate sensitivity," defined as how many degrees average global temperature will increase as a result of doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide. Virtually all the climate models used in the IPCC's worst-case predictions of dangerous global warming presume a worst-case scenario equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 3.0 to 3.5 degrees Celsius. But leading IPCC scientists have concluded that if humans were responsible for all observed warming since 1971, the ECS would be around 2.0 degrees Celsius. And if humans are only responsible for about half of the observed warming, as the IPCC itself admits is quite possible, that implies an ECS closer to 1.0 degrees Celsius.

A reliable figure for ECS continues to elude our grasp, but with an ECS of 1.0 degrees Celsius, the case for sweeping reductions in carbon emissions is greatly weakened. At that level of climate sensitivity, even if carbon dioxide emissions continue to increase unabated, temperatures would increase significantly less than the stated goal of the IPCC's, which is warming of no more than two degrees Celsius by 2100. (This may explain why the Paris agreement moved the goalposts to a new goal of less than 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100). But in that case, IPCC's worst-case scenario would then be non-catastrophic by the IPCC's own definition.

The policy implications are dramatic. Under this scenario, which lies well within the IPCC's forecast, even dramatic reductions in carbon dioxide emissions would have no measurable impact on temperatures. And the natural factors responsible for as much as half the recently observed warming would presumably continue warming the planet, oblivious to any reduction in carbon emissions.

The key point is this: The IPCC's latest "attribution statement" (extreme confidence that more than half the observed warming is due to humans) would be correct even if ECS is only 1.0 degrees Celsius and expected increases in carbon dioxide pose essentially no risk of catastrophic climate change.

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/03/31/twilight-of-the-climate-change-movement/

---

---

Overall a pretty good article that fairly assesses the question in light of current data. Is global warming impacted by man? The answer without a doubt is yes. However, climate change on this planet is a given, regardless of human activity. The question is to what extent is change man induced? By some studies of global climate cycles, we are due to enter into a period of global cooling, or new ice age. To what extent will factors driving the warming trend mitigate factors of global cooling? On the other hand, should we do what we can to mitigate our impact on climate change, in light of a cost benefit analysis, as suggested in the article? Probably yes. As the article suggests, there are more critical issues of survivability which we are faced with that merit our attention, where we are failing. We are in the midst of what appears to be a continuance of a worldwide mass extinction of species that is increasing and is man induced. The end result of that has far more reaching consequences for disrupting an environment capable of sustaining our species. As pointed out in the article, our unabated population growth, and our destruction and disregard of ecosystems, other species and the overall environment is far more critical to our own survival. Climate is cyclical, and in many instances driven by factors we cannot control as of yet. However, we can do something about the environment, and protecting and rehabilitating ecosystems and other species.

BTW - the meat and dairy industry around the world is responsible by far for more greenhouse gas emissions than the fossil fuel industry. What we eat is literally killing us and driving western health care costs through the roof. Adopting a whole food, plant based diet, would eliminate the excessive greenhouse gas emissions, and would eliminate most heart disease, strokes, Type 2 diabetes, and many cancers and chronic diseases common to Americans and those who eat the standard American diet. It would bring an end to the health care crisis and associated runaway medical costs we are experiencing in western civilization.

---

A plant-based diet wouldn't come close to eliminating those diseases. It might lengthen lifespans a bit, but that would only increase the demand for medical care and worsen the crisis.

Why don't we ramp up nuclear power? It's clean.

Forest Bueller said:

---

Many of the thousands of factors which contribute to the climate cycles and changes we will never have any control over, sunspot or solar activity being one of the many.

---

That's a lousy excuse not to exercise control over the things we can.

quash said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Many of the thousands of factors which contribute to the climate cycles and changes we will never have any control over, sunspot or solar activity being one of the many.

---

That's a lousy excuse not to exercise control over the things we can.

---

well, jump on the end pollution bandwagon. Jump on the replant forests bandwagon.

Jump off the climate change bull poop train. Climates will change regardless of what we do...

Gruvin said:

---

quash said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Many of the thousands of factors which contribute to the climate cycles and changes we will never have any control over, sunspot or solar activity being one of the many.

---

That's a lousy excuse not to exercise control over the things we can.

---

well, jump on the end pollution bandwagon. Jump on the replant forests bandwagon.

Jump off the climate change bull poop train. Climates will change regardless of what we do...

---

He can't. Like political correctness, climate change is an integral part of his religion. That'd be like asking a Catholic to deny the Virgin Mary.

quash said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Many of the thousands of factors which contribute to the climate cycles and changes we will never have any control over, sunspot or solar activity being one of the many.

---

That's a lousy excuse not to exercise control over the things we can.

---

What do you recommend? (sorry if you already posted it above)

quash said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Many of the thousands of factors which contribute to the climate cycles and changes we will never have any control over, sunspot or solar activity being one of the many.

---

That's a lousy excuse not to exercise control over the things we can.

---

Didn't say we shouldn't, but someone earlier said we can't control them "yet", ain't no yet to it, there are thousands of things we will never have any control over.

Canada2017 said:

---

I don't need to watch any video.

Been reading data from various journals for years until a few months ago........when I finally gave up.

Concluded we are simply going to destroy ourselves .

---

You might be right. You go first.

witchmo said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

I don't need to watch any video.

Been reading data from various journals for years until a few months ago........when I finally gave up.

Concluded we are simply going to destroy ourselves .

---

You might be right. You go first.

---

We will all 'go' together .

Similar to the 1918 influenza epidemic.

Only worse .

Jinx 2 said:

---

..and we aren't going to do what needs to be done, because the political climate is much more important.

China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by us.

I had not thought I would see dramatic effects in my lifetime, since I will likely live another 30 years max. But it appears we all will.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.

---

The global economy must be transformed immediately to avoid catastrophic climate damage, a new United Nations report declares. Climate economist William Nordhaus has been made a Nobel laureate. The events are being reported as two parts of the same story, but they reveal the contradictions inherent in climate policyand why economics matters more than ever.
Limiting temperatures to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels, as the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change urges, is economically and practically impossibleas Mr. Nordhaus's work shows. The IPCC report significantly underestimates the costs of getting to zero emissions. Fossil fuels provide cheap, efficient power, whereas green energy remains mostly uncompetitive. Switching to more expensive, less efficient technology slows development. In poor nations that means fewer people lifted out of poverty. In rich ones it means the most vulnerable are hit by higher energy bills.

The IPCC says carbon emissions need to peak right now and fall rapidly to avert catastrophe. Models actually reveal that to achieve the 2.7-degree goal the world must stop all fossil fuel use in less than four years. Yet the International Energy Agency estimates that in 2040 fossil fuels will still meet three-quarters of world energy needs, even if the Paris agreement is fully implemented. The U.N. body responsible for the accord estimates that if every country fulfills every pledge by 2030, CO2 emissions will be cut by 60 billion tons by 2030. That's less than 1% of what is needed to keep temperature rises below 2.7 degrees. And achieving even that fraction would be vastly expensive reducing world-wide growth $1 trillion to $2 trillion each year by 2030.

The European Union promises to cut emissions 80% by 2050. With realistic assumptions about technology, and the optimistic assumption that the EU's climate policy is very well designed and coordinated, the average of seven leading peer-reviewed models finds EU annual costs will reach 2.9 trillion ($3.3 trillion), more than twice what EU governments spend today on health, education, recreation, housing, environment, police and defense combined. In reality, it is likely to cost much more because EU climate legislation has been an inefficient patchwork. If that continues, the policy will make the EU 24% poorer in 2050.

Trying to do more, as the IPCC urges, would be phenomenally expensive. It is important to keep things in perspective, challenging as that is given the hysterical tone of the reaction to the panel's latest offering. In its latest full report, the IPCC estimated that in 60 years unmitigated global warming would cost the planet between 0.2% and 2% of gross domestic product. That's simply not the end of the world.
The new report has no comparison of the costs and benefits of climate targets. Mr. Nordhaus's most recent estimate, published in August, is that the "optimal" outcome with a moderate carbon tax is a rise of about 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Reducing temperature rises by more would result in higher costs than benefits, potentially causing the world a $50 trillion loss.

It's past time to stop pushing so hard for carbon cuts before alternative energy sources are ready to take over. Instead the world must focus on resolving the technology deficit that makes switching away from fossil fuels so expensive. Genuine breakthroughs are required to drive down the future price of green energy.

Copenhagen Consensus analysis shows a ramped-up green-energy research-and-development budget of around $100 billion a year would be the most effective global-warming policy. It would be much cheaper than the approach pushed by the IPCC, and would not require global consensus. Most important, it would have a much better chance of ameliorating temperature rises. Under the IPPC's approach, by contrast, the costs would vastly outweigh the benefits. Instead, the over-the-top reception to the latest IPCC report means that we are more likely to continue down a pathway where the costs would vastly outweigh the benefits.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Many of the thousands of factors which contribute to the climate cycles and changes we will never have any control over, sunspot or solar activity being one of the many.

---

That's a lousy excuse not to exercise control over the things we can.

---

Alright then I fully expect you to stop using a computer or cell phone which utilizes energy likely from natural gas or coal. Also get rid of all your vehicles.

That and 90% of everything else you use.

Will you practice what you preach, yes or no?

---

I don't preach what you seem to think. I have said, many times, that the market is the solution, not some Luddite retreat to the Middle Ages.

And my energy comes from Green Mountain, all wind.

Illinois Bear2 said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

..and we aren't going to do what needs to be done, because the political climate is much more important.

China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by us.

I had not thought I would see dramatic effects in my lifetime, since I will likely live another 30 years max. But it appears we all will.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.

---

The global economy must be transformed immediately to avoid catastrophic climate damage, a new United Nations report declares. Climate economist William Nordhaus has been made a Nobel laureate. The events are being reported as two parts of the same story, but they reveal the contradictions inherent in climate policyand why economics matters more than ever.
Limiting temperatures to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels, as the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change urges, is economically and practically impossibleas Mr. Nordhaus's work shows. The IPCC report significantly underestimates the costs of getting to zero emissions. Fossil fuels provide cheap, efficient power, whereas green energy remains mostly uncompetitive. Switching to more expensive, less efficient technology slows development. In poor nations that means fewer people lifted out of poverty. In rich ones it means the most vulnerable are hit by higher energy bills.

The IPCC says carbon emissions need to peak right now and fall rapidly to avert catastrophe. Models actually reveal that to achieve the 2.7-degree goal the world must stop all fossil fuel use in less than four years. Yet the International Energy Agency estimates that in 2040 fossil fuels will still meet three-quarters of world energy needs, even if the Paris agreement is fully implemented. The U.N. body responsible for the accord estimates that if every country fulfills every pledge by 2030, CO2 emissions will be cut by 60 billion tons by 2030. That's less than 1% of what is needed to keep temperature rises below 2.7 degrees. And achieving even that fraction would be vastly expensive reducing world-wide growth $1 trillion to $2 trillion each year by 2030.

The European Union promises to cut emissions 80% by 2050. With realistic assumptions about technology, and the optimistic assumption that the EU's climate policy is very well designed and coordinated, the average of seven leading peer-reviewed models finds EU annual costs will reach 2.9 trillion ($3.3 trillion), more than twice what EU governments spend today on health, education, recreation, housing, environment, police and defense combined. In reality, it is likely to cost much more because EU climate legislation has been an inefficient patchwork. If that continues, the policy will make the EU 24% poorer in 2050.

Trying to do more, as the IPCC urges, would be phenomenally expensive. It is important to keep things in perspective, challenging as that is given the hysterical tone of the reaction to the panel's latest offering. In its latest full report, the IPCC estimated that in 60 years unmitigated global warming would cost the planet between 0.2% and 2% of gross domestic product. That's simply not the end of the world.
The new report has no comparison of the costs and benefits of climate targets. Mr. Nordhaus's most recent estimate, published in August, is that the "optimal" outcome with a moderate carbon tax is a rise of about 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Reducing temperature rises by more would result in higher costs than benefits, potentially causing the world a $50 trillion loss.

It's past time to stop pushing so hard for carbon cuts before alternative energy sources are ready to take over. Instead the world must focus on resolving the technology deficit that makes switching away from fossil fuels so expensive. Genuine breakthroughs are required to drive down the future price of green energy.

Copenhagen Consensus analysis shows a ramped-up green-energy research-and-development budget of around $100 billion a year would be the most effective global-warming policy. It would be much cheaper than the approach pushed by the IPCC, and would not require global consensus. Most important, it would have a much better chance of ameliorating temperature rises. Under the IPPC's approach, by contrast, the costs would vastly outweigh the benefits. Instead, the over-the-top reception to the latest IPCC report means that we are more likely to continue down a pathway where the costs would vastly outweigh the benefits.

---

Hi codeditor.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/un-ignores-climate-fighting-costs/