Big Coal Predicted Climate Change...In 1966

<Reply to Deleted> I’m pointing out false premises. Saying a slight decrease in 3 nutrients has any relevance to India when malnutrition there is caused by something else <Mod Edit>

Here is where I found the link.



Here is a screenshot of the article with the link information open at the top.



From your link.

I directly quoted from my link. Your link has the information corrected. Good for them. But they got it wrong originally. I specifically said it was possible you made an honest mistake and you may have. I don’t know why your browser does what it does, but on my phone and iPad the links are different with mine having “maize” and yours “potatoes”. I’ve copied and pasted both links numerous times into new pages and mine goes to the original and yours goes to the corrected version.

I provided a link and I’ve provided screen shots of how I arrived at that link. It contains erroneous information which was my claim. I stand by that claim. The fact the mistake was later corrected doesn’t negate the original error.

<Reply to Deleted>

<Reply to Deleted>

<Reply to Deleted>

 

When I type your link in exactly, in any browser, it shows my version of reality. It says potatoes, not maize.

I tried it on my iphone with safari. It says potatoes, not maize. That's with your link.

The only place that "maize" shows up is on your devices, when they use some google info page about the article. That is, google messed it up somehow.

The link that you kept posting was _not_ the link you were actually looking at. Twice, you posted a link that said one thing, and then swore it said the opposite, because you weren't actually looking at that page. So, this screwup is on you, and the article was accurate.

 

The link I posted was the link available in google search. It’s still the one that comes up. My screenshots verified this. Continuing to insinuate I’m a liar is to my advantage in this debate. I can’t change that. Like I said, a corrected version obviously exists, but it does nothing to refute the fact they got it wrong originally.

Calling me a liar for pointing out other’s mistakes only buttresses my position that the emotional response and appeal is very one sided on the doom and gloom side. I thank you for throwing around the ad hom. I’ve been called a denier numerous times for pointing out factual errors, but this exchange far exceeded anything previous. I’m glad it’s played out this way, because it will likely encourage others to seek more accurate information in the future.

All I care about is “good” science and accurate marketing of that science. Science is my life. If I ignore realities, living organisms suffer and die and I suffer economically. It is contrary to my best interest to corrupt or misrepresent science, and I will not do so.

Again, I’m very open to discussion on the science involved here. If I wasn’t, I wouldn’t have picked the subject I did for an example. On the surface, it seems to be a slam dunk argument for decreasing atmospheric CO2. But the endless false premises that nobody even notices because climate science has evolved into a godlike, unquestionable entity, leave a very shaky foundation on which to build. It’s time to shore up that foundation or tear the whole thing down and start over.

 

Lol, let me guess... you don't care to elaborate.

 

No, you are the target.

 

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2019/12/22/holiday-message-2019-on-publishing-books/
From about 48:00 to about 48:30, just a 30 second tidbit in this podcast episode.

 

So what ???

 

There are no fact checkers for non-fiction books. Even a magazine article is more reliable.

 

What are non fiction books based on ???

 

lol, you're right, all the books you posted were fiction, but those aren't fact checked either.

 

Your claim is so absurd that it’s not worth the time to prove it. In your world magazines are more reliable than textbooks. Too funny.

 

lol, in your world I can write absolutely anything and you would believe it as long as you wanted to, and I had a list of citations no matter if they actually said what I said they did or not.

 

It's also funny how often disproving or finding evidence of something is so not worth the effort lol.

 

Your error is in assuming that fact checkers are a substitute for critical thinking skills.

 

And using critical thinking, we should be able to reason that something that wasn't at least fact checked is not a definitive source.

 

You cannot make stuff like this ^^^^ up.

 

Shouldn't have to... it should be obvious.

 

Again right over your head.

 

Lol not likely.

 

Something that IS fact checked is ALSO not a definitive source. Only ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS are the definitive source. That's what science means. Hello?

 

Lol, everyone likes to make up their own definitions for things like proof and science. So, a book that is not fact checked is something that can be essentially ignored. Fact checking should give you a little more confidence all the way on up to published and peer reviewed research papers. Now, even peer reviewed papers can be wrong. But, if essentially all of them say one thing, and the only things that disagree are books that aren't even subject to minimum fact checking, well, we can put on our critical thinking caps and draw a pretty obvious conclusion.

 

No they don't. Very few people have any interest in making up definitions, and far fewer still are competent to do so.

Like the Qu'ran? How's that working out for you?

They are not the ultimate authority. ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS are the ultimate authority.

If we want to avoid the hard work of actually thinking about what the book says.

 

Lol, well of course hardly anybody (if anybody) is qualified to actually make definitions. That however doesn't stop everyone from trying. "Until we can recreate and run the universe, and the exact conditions that led to life on earth, evolution isn't science and whatever I want to believe is just as valid as the real science." "Until the god of climate change comes down from the mountain and punches me in the nose, I can deny that anything counts as proof and also evidence and therefore anything I want to believe is equally valid."

Exactly like the koran. Just like the koran, books aimed at denying climate change have tons of emotional and political impact, but can tell us exactly nothing about the real world.

They are the highest authority we have. They can be wrong, but not nearly as wrong as every other option.

Of course, one would only read those books if one wanted to avoid the hard work of actually learning the science. Then learning how to read and then reading the real scientific peer reviewed research.

If you do an amazon search for 'quantum' you can find a bottomless well of absolute unmitigated nonsense. But the reason there are so many is because you can write a book (free from fact-checking) that sounds just as good (and probably much better) to the rank amateur as the ones based on the real science. More people probably believe the nonsense ones, but they have never published a single paper on it, and the scientists who know what they are talking about are less than convinced.

 

But someone has to, especially in technical topics.

Which books deny that climate changes?

Nope. The highest authority is actual physical events.

Thinking is harder work than just blindly believing anything that is pal-reviewed. You don't seem to have kept up on recent research showing that the majority of published, peer-reviewed research is wrong.

 

There needs to be a standard of evidence. That's one of the big uses of peer review.

So, this is the incredibly stupid argument that "climate has changed before." So, I always ask if you think that every scientist with a PHD in climate science isn't aware of the natural variation in climate that everyone learned in third grade.

Good news is that we can do better than that. We don't just build bridges and see if they fall down.

Oh? Let's see that research. Also, if this is true, how can you believe that research? How can you ever take a drug? Or get in an airplane? Or a tall building?