Big Coal Predicted Climate Change...In 1966

Scott Adams is hilariously wrong because the hard data says he's wrong. It's that simple.

His argument is essentially "The sky is green, because there's pressure on scientists to say that the sky is blue".

Dishonest pop psychology doesn't change the hard data.

 

Books. With hundreds of references and footnotes.

 

Maybe you can answer this: What do you claim are the top three destructive examples of global warming ???

Adams is accurate.

Adams, Scott. Loserthink (pp. 22-23). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

 

Right after you answer your own question, and you explain the purpose of the question.

If you won't, it demonstrates you're just trolling, and the appropriate laughter will ensue.

So, like Adams, you say that hard data doesn't matter. Instead, whoever makes up the most creative pop psychology wins.

 

So you have no answer.

What hard data ?? The temperature data sets (other than the satellite data) are a joke.

 

Everything in my critique is factual. If you disagree please be specific as to why.

As I demonstrated, there are at least two glaring false premises. The fact you don’t care is interesting. Please explain the flawed logic claim. Be specific. Also, what is emotion based?

Be specific. What was stupid or fraudulent in my post?

Of course there were factual errors. Maize is misrepresented. Can you explain the misrepresentation?

Also, remember the part about beans? The fact is, beans grown under forecasted environmental conditions actually have higher nutrient concentrations. If that’s the case, why would they be included with the other crops in the analysis?

But you knew all that, right?

 

Your implied claim that that if "A" was one cause of something, then any talk of "B" also being a cause is emotion, even if "B" is demonstrably also a significant cause.

Maize is referenced once, and linked to a paper that backs up the claim. I fail to see any misrepresentation.

Not according to the research I see. For example,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6212502/

Because that's not the case.

 

I did not use A or B. Please be specific.

You have a link to a paper that claims maize is a C3 plant? I would love to see that.

Again, what you see is deceiving. And you failed to read your link. Remember titles don’t always tell the whole story.

Your link supports my position if you read it. Really it has little relevance since it addresses drought stress, not CO2 concentration. However, if you read the research, protein and zinc levels increase under drought conditions. But what you are really missing is ozone. The predicted ozone concentrations at 550 ppm CO2 increases the nutritional value of beans. So really, we’ve uncovered another false premise. Cool, huh?

 

You gave a list of things that cause malnutrition in India. That's was "A". The fact that higher CO2 would also cause it is "B". It is not rational to imply that since "A" exists, "B" can't also be significant.

You have quote from the article showing it says maize is a C3 plant? I would love to see that. Your "false premise" there looks to exist only in your imagination.

Then read this one.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4810679/

Percent change in nutrient content at elevated [CO2] relative to ambient [CO2]

That's not right. Where did you get such nonsense? There's no relation between CO2 levels and ozone levels.

There is a theory that increasing CO2 levels will result in less damage from ozone, but that's totally different from your claim. And there's a theory that increasing ozone levels will stop CO2 fertilization from happening, which you should have mentioned, if you were being "impartial".

What was the false premise? Provide the quote and state it exactly. You keep asserting there was a false premise, but you haven't demonstrated any.

 

A list? No. I told you what actually causes malnutrition in India. Public defecation. Not minor fluctuations in nutrient density of food.

CO2 levels and their effect on nutrient density are irrelevant to the problems in India. Making an emotional appeal with irrelevant information is wrong.

And I demonstrated how higher CO2 levels cannot cause B. So your argument is baseless.

Sure. From my link.
“Common C3 crops include maize, wheat and rice.”

Now, please produce the article claiming maize is a C3 plant.

Why are you linking to something that has no more information than the article and research I linked to? That was all in my linked article and I said the science as reported was sound.

Actually there is if you believe higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere leads to warming and that warming results in higher O3 concentrations.

That is my claim. It’s a fact increased CO2 levels mitigate damage from ozone. What would happen if we decreased CO2 levels and O3 levels rose anyway because of temperature decrease lag? The data on O3 is so bizarre it’s hard to determine the future. Some say higher temps will make higher O3 a certainty. Yet actual empirical evidence shows O3 levels decreasing rapidly in the past as temps climb. I’d be interested in your take on this.

Yes, it’s worth mentioning. Perhaps I should have. Just like the authors of my linked piece should have mentioned much of their predicted nutritional deficiencies are unable to be affected by small variations in nutrient density. And that increased yields will negate that concentration reduction and result in more total nutrition, not less.

Well, I just reiterated two in the previous paragraph.

 

It’s curious to note the positions of some. The case of correlation of global warming with increasing CO2 concentration is accepted as causation but in the case of correlation of global greening with increasing CO2 concentration causation is rejected.

 

Because you say so? Nice emotional appeal there.

Then stop making it your staple tactic.

No, as usual, you just asserted it without any support.

It actually says "Common C3 crops include potatoes, wheat and rice." The evidence indicates that you have just deliberately faked a quote.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/rising-...undreds-of-millions-into-malnutrition-by-2050

If you want to regain any credibility, you'll need to explain why you faked a quote, apologize for doing so, and promise to not fake quotes in the the future.

Because the scientific paper, which was a meta-study compiling and summarizing many other studies, has vastly more information than the more general article.

You said beans would be more nutritious with more CO2. That scientific article says the opposite. You claim was debunked. That was the point of posting it, to irrefutably debunk your claim.

There's a pattern here. You push false claims, then you declare that anyone who doesn't push the same false claims is being emotional. Someone here is emotional and lacking credibility, and it's not the scientists.

 

As the first fossil fuel that made the industrial revolution possible, it had its place, but the era of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) needs to go the way of the horse and carriage. It will get there.

 

The real hockey stick is the skyrocketing of the human standard of living as fossil fuels became readily available. Fossils fuels will be continuously improving the human condition for centuries to come.

 

No. It is the absurd anti-CO2 scaremongering that defies reality. Where is the claimed crisis? Where is the claimed emergency? Where?

 

No, I knew it was based on the anti-CO2 hysteria campaign in the peer-reviewed journals.

Too bad.

 

Yes. You would hope that at least three examples of damage caused by global warming could be documented by the alarmists but so far no one has responded after years of posing this question.

 

It is extremely difficult to predict even 50y into the future. I suspect solar will soon -- in a few decades, say -- become so cheap that fossil "fuels" will mainly be used for chemical feedstocks and other special applications. Our descendants will likely view our burning of oil for its energy content much as we now view the burning of whales for their energy content.

 

I looked at a couple, and they are obvious garbage.

 

That doesn't describe me in any particular....

 

Nonscience is nonscience no matter who does it.

 

Yes. The sad part is that government is subsidizing the wrong forms of non economically competitive solar. IMO roof top solar panels feeding into a power grid is a ridiculous idea. The subsidy policies will unfortunately delay economically competitive forms of solar.

 

Bingo. It's better as a way to go off-grid.

True. If the government wants to subsidize solar, let it subsidize basic research, not politically favored companies.

 

Nope. Fact.
The Down To Earth organization based in India has this to say on malnutrition in India.

“But the most important aspect is sanitation. Most children in rural areas and urban slums are constantly exposed to germs from their neighbours’ faeces. This makes them vulnerable to the kinds of chronic intestinal diseases that prevent bodies from making good use of nutrients in food, and they become malnourished.

​

According to the Planning Commission’s evaluation report of the Total Sanitation Campaign, close to 72 per cent people in the country’s rural areas still defecate in the open (see ‘Uncomfortable facts’). Every day, an estimated 100,000 tonnes of human excreta are left unguarded along river and stream banks, in open fields, on road sides and farms to contaminate water sources. According to Unicef, each gram of human excreta contains 10 million viruses, one million bacteria, 1,000 parasite cysts and 100 parasite eggs. Given the high population density in the country, this is sufficient to trigger widespread diseases. Children are more susceptible to such diseases. “

Please be specific and show where I’ve appealed to emotion.

It is a fact that malnutrition caused by poor sanitation has no relevance to the subject at hand. In other news, water is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Do you need something to back up that claim? A link? Consensus?

If you want to regain any credibility you will need to explain why you are providing a link that is not the one I supplied and we are discussing. Here is mine again. Read it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ca...eds-of-millions-into-malnutrition-by-2050/amp

When someone provides a link, it’s customary to use that link in discussion. If you’ve made an honest mistake we’ll just let it pass. It is nice someone somewhere apparently was embarrassed enough to put an amended article out. But you posted a different link than the one supplied and accused me of faking a quote. I did not. You faked a link.

Does it? But does it have enough information?

Perhaps you don’t know much about nutrition. Are you operating under the assumption protein, iron and zinc are the only things affecting nutritional value of food crops? Does it seem odd to you that the only nutrients reported on are ones that sometimes decrease in experimentation? Why would nutrients that increase not be included? Especially ones so important to good nutrition?

You can read this. It actually has new information you apparently aren’t aware of.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6199416/#!po=53.0488

It’s also of note different cultivars (varieties) of beans behave differently. Some cultivars in this trial had increased Zn levels incidentally.

What false claims? Just because I claim something you aren’t aware of doesn’t make it false. That’s like saying global warming doesn’t exist because some Sentinelese people haven’t heard of the concept.

 

As it applies to this discussion, it doesn't freakin' matter. Even if true, the fact that poor sanitation causes some malnutrition does not mean that poor nutrition can't also cause malnutrition. <Rule 2>

Both links go to exactly the same article. When you put your link in the browser and tell it to navigate, it automatically flips to my link. <Rule 2>

The article says "Common C3 crops include potatoes, wheat and rice."

You claimed that it says "Common C3 crops include maize, wheat and rice."

<Rule 2>