Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So, you are saying they do change the raw data.

That is bad...

You're just too stupid to understand.

[AaronY]

excellent debate

[SnakeBoy]

How your pet is contributing to global warming

Turns out that chow you’re feeding Fido and Felix produces a pretty big carbon pawprint.

In a study released Wednesday, a geography professor at UCLA calculated that the meat-based food Americans’ dogs and cats eat – and the waste those pets produce – generate the equivalent of about 64 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.

That’s as much as about 13.6 million cars driving for a year, says professor Gregory Okin in a paper published in the journal PLOS One.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/env...#storylink=cpy

[pgardn]

How your pet is contributing to global warming

Turns out that chow you’re feeding Fido and Felix produces a pretty big carbon pawprint.

In a study released Wednesday, a geography professor at UCLA calculated that the meat-based food Americans’ dogs and cats eat – and the waste those pets produce – generate the equivalent of about 64 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.

That’s as much as about 13.6 million cars driving for a year, says professor Gregory Okin in a paper published in the journal PLOS One.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/env...#storylink=cpy

Bam.

Take that!

The whole idea really sucks now.

[pgardn]

And while your at it, fck science.

Its a mantis shrimp, so what the ... Who spends government money on this type of research?

https://phys.org/news/2016-05-mantis...materials.html

oh what a crock... a little shrimp, we can make fun of it without knowing what the we are talking about

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/20...imp-fight-club

[boutons_deux]

excellent graphic representation of water boiling for all of us frogs


http://e360.yale.edu/digest/new-vide...ust-35-seconds

[Chris]

You've been duped; hoodwinked.

[RandomGuy]

excellent debate

Most of the "excellent debate" happened years ago. This thread is old.

It takes some hard core jackassery to keep ignoring the data.

Government Report Finds Drastic Impact of Climate Change on U.S.

WASHINGTON — The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration.

The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.

“Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans,” a draft of the report states. A copy of it was obtained by The New York Times.

The authors note that thousands of studies, conducted by tens of thousands of scientists, have do ented climate changes on land and in the air. “Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change,” they wrote.

The report was completed this year and is a special science section of the National Climate Assessment, which is congressionally mandated every four years. The National Academy of Sciences has signed off on the draft report, and the authors are awaiting permission from the Trump administration to release it.


--------------------------------------------
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/c...ing-trump.html


Of course science is now politically incorrect. Can't let actual science by real scientists get in the way of political hacks.

[boutons_deux]

Pruitt, etc will block the draft from being officially published as a govt do ent

I expect Sessions to prosecute the leakers

[RandomGuy]

How your pet is contributing to global warming

Turns out that chow you’re feeding Fido and Felix produces a pretty big carbon pawprint.

In a study released Wednesday, a geography professor at UCLA calculated that the meat-based food Americans’ dogs and cats eat – and the waste those pets produce – generate the equivalent of about 64 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.

That’s as much as about 13.6 million cars driving for a year, says professor Gregory Okin in a paper published in the journal PLOS One.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/env...#storylink=cpy

Read the study.

Fairly rigorous.

The author got close.

He even addressed my primary concern:

It could be argued that dogs and cats eat meat that humans cannot consume and which is simply a byproduct of production for human use, and therefore should not be counted as consumption beyond that of humans. To some extent, this is certainly true; humans, for instance, do not generally consume bone meal, a common ingredient. But other ingredients in pet food that are byproducts of human meat production are certainly edible after processing. The argument that dogs' and cats' environmental and energetic impacts are obviated by the fact that they eat byproducts from the human food system, and that otherwise the material would go to waste, relies on the assumption that these same byproducts could not be made to be suitable for human consumption after suitable processing. And much pet food probably is already edible and serves as a potential source of protein as a food of last resort; there are reports, both official and unofficial, of impoverished Americans eating pet food as a necessary supplement to their diet [55–57, 58, 59]. At any rate, the trend toward premium pet food with more animal products that Americans would recognize as edible indicates that pets are eating animal products that could also be eaten by humans and that there is direct compe ion with the human food system for ingredients in some of these products [10].

The proprietary nature of and incredible variety in pet food recipes makes a detailed calculation impossible, but for the sake of argument, if just one-quarter of the estimated 33% animal-derived energy in pet food was consumable by humans, it alone would support the animal-derived energy consumption of 26 million Americans (with 19% of their energy in derived from animal products). This same energy is equal to the entire energy requirement of almost 5 million Americans, or approximately the population of Colorado [48]. If animal-derived energy was converted to its plant equivalent, one-quarter of the animal-derived energy in US dogs' and cats' food would support ~35 million humans. If even only 5% of the animal-derived energy in pet food could be eaten by humans, this would be equivalent to the animal-product consumption of more than 5 million Americans, and the total energy consumption of 1 million Americans, or about the population of Montana [25, 26, 48].

Additional research is needed to evaluate the animal content and human-edibility of ingredients in dog and cat food after processing, but the calculations presented here indicate that these pets comprise a significant proportion of US energy and animal-derived product consumption, with the consequent environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emission and feces production. Inasmuch as increasing animal production is a threat to the sustainability of the global food system [1, 2], the non-negligible contribution of dogs and cats compounds the problem and exacerbates the threat to sustainability posed by our dietary choices. This is particularly true given increasing pet ownership in some developing countries, and trends in "humanization" of pet food [22, 23] which competes directly with the human food system [10]. Reducing the rate of dog and cat ownership, perhaps in favor of other, less energy-intensive, pets that offer similar health, social, and emotional benefits, would considerably reduce America's overall livestock-related environmental impacts. Both small (e.g., birds, hamsters) and large (e.g., horses) have been shown to be associated with important benefits, including friendship, verbal interaction, companionship [60, 61], promoting self-care [62, 63], and increased empathy [64]. For children, both small and large pets provide friendship, love, and fun as well as opportunities to learn responsibility and deal with pet mortality and mourning [65, 66]. For children with illnesses, small pets have been shown to improve their at ude and help them keep their minds off their disease [67].

[RandomGuy]

Pruitt, etc will block the draft from being officially published as a govt do ent

I expect Sessions to prosecute the leakers

The political appointees will certainly attempt to do so.

For years asshats on the right who think this is a hoax have been saying its all politics, and are now making that way, if it wasn't before. It wasn't before.

[AaronY]

You've been duped; hoodwinked.

Listen to this guy he knows what hes talking just like with his vaccine truther and 9/11 truther takes...keen mind over here. Aint pulling no wool over his eyes. Also, he's got a netflix boycott going becuase its too liberal. Ask him about it and you could learn some stuff

[Chris]

Listen to this guy he knows what hes talking just like with his vaccine truther and 9/11 truther takes...keen mind over here. Aint pulling no wool over his eyes. Also, he's got a netflix boycott going becuase its too liberal. Ask him about it and you could learn some stuff

Let us proceed...

[Spurminator]

Just an observation that basically everyone, regardless of any personal differences, believed NASA when they told us to only wear special glasses during the eclipse. All media, mainstream and otherwise, amplified the message of public safety that you are only supposed to look at the sun through specific types of sunglasses. It was accepted truth. No one argued. There were no politics involved.

So why isn't that the case when it comes to climate change?

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[DarrinS]

Just an observation that basically everyone, regardless of any personal differences, believed NASA when they told us to only wear special glasses during the eclipse. All media, mainstream and otherwise, amplified the message of public safety that you are only supposed to look at the sun through specific types of sunglasses. It was accepted truth. No one argued. There were no politics involved.

So why isn't that the case when it comes to climate change?

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Some things are much more predictable than others.

[Spurminator]

Some things are much more predictable than others.

Yeah I'm sure that's it.

[spurraider21]

Just an observation that basically everyone, regardless of any personal differences, believed NASA when they told us to only wear special glasses during the eclipse. All media, mainstream and otherwise, amplified the message of public safety that you are only supposed to look at the sun through specific types of sunglasses. It was accepted truth. No one argued. There were no politics involved.

So why isn't that the case when it comes to climate change?

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Logical conclusion is that everyone is in the pockets of BigSpecialSunglasses

[Spurminator]

Logical conclusion is that everyone is in the pockets of BigSpecialSunglasses

Yep. That's why I looked at it through a microscope. #DrainTheSwamp

[Wild Cobra]

Just an observation that basically everyone, regardless of any personal differences, believed NASA when they told us to only wear special glasses during the eclipse. All media, mainstream and otherwise, amplified the message of public safety that you are only supposed to look at the sun through specific types of sunglasses. It was accepted truth. No one argued. There were no politics involved.

So why isn't that the case when it comes to climate change?

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Because the climate section is a space given to three bloggers who run it, and have no science credentials.

Ever look up the three names at the bottom... What their credentials are?

They lie about what those six or seven consensus papers actually say.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Because the climate section is a space given to three bloggers who run it, and have no science credentials.

Ever look up the three names at the bottom... What their credentials are?

They lie about what those six or seven consensus papers actually say.

This is just ignorant.

The site editor edits everything on the site not just that page. His bio says so explicitly. He has a masters in journalism. He is not a "blogger," dimwit.

The editor is their social media liason as per her bio and she has a masters in public administration ie PR. Not a blogger.

The science editor teaches climate and has their masters in marine science.

Regardless

This website is produced by the Earth Science Communications Team at
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory | California Ins ute of Technology

They are all employed by Cal Tech. You barely passed high school. Below are the actual contributors to the site:

https://climate.nasa.gov/about-us/

Dr. Carmen Boening has a Ph.D. in Physical Oceanography from the University of Bremen, Germany. She is involved in JPL's Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE) and its follow-on mission, GRACE FO, to be launched in 2017. Her research interests include the complex processes behind sea level rise, involving interactions between the ocean, atmosphere, land hydrology and land ice.

Dr. Erik Conway is the historian at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, holding a Ph.D. in History of Science and Technology from the University of Minnesota. He writes on the history of Earth, planetary and space sciences in the 20th century, his most recent work en led Exploration and Engineering: The Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Quest for Mars.

With a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Bristol University, Dr. Michael Gunson is a Global Change and Energy program manager and an Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) project scientist. His research interests lie in atmospheric remote sensing, atmospheric composition and chemistry, and climate change. Prior to his present JPL roles, Dr. Gunson worked as a lead scientist for building the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument aboard NASA’s AQUA satellite and the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) aboard the AURA satellite.

Joe Witte started his career as a glaciologist for the USGS, working on the ice of South Cascade Glacier, Wash. He has worked for network affiliate news stations in New York City, Seattle, Milwaukee and Philadelphia, and was NBC’s morning weatherman for 20 years. He currently advises NASA communications teams about how to adapt NASA science content for use by TV meteorologists.

Dr. Charles Miller received his Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from the University of California, Berkeley. As a research scientist at JPL, his interests include atmospheric chemistry and carbon cycle science. He is the principal investigator of NASA's Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE), which looks at atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane in the Arctic. He is also the JPL lead for the Keck Ins ute for Space Studies (KISS)’s Monitoring Megacity CO2 Emissions from Space project, and a member of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) science team.

NASA scientist Dr. William “Bill” Patzert has a Ph.D. in Oceanography from the University of Hawaii. His research interests center on understanding and forecasting global, as well as local, climate change. He is an expert in science communication and often appears in the print and social media and on local and national television and radio. He lectures widely and works with students from around the world.

Dr. Duane Waliser has a Ph.D. in Physical Oceanography from the University of California, San Diego. In addition to being JPL’s Earth Science and Technology Directorate's chief scientist, he is an adjunct professor in the University of California, Los Angeles's Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and a visiting associate in Caltech's Geological and Planetary Sciences Division. His research includes focus on climate dynamics and variability, ocean-atmosphere interactions, water cycle and weather/climate predictability.

A project scientist for NASA’s Jason-3 satellite and principal investigator of the Oceans Melting Greenland campaign, Dr. Josh Willis received his Ph.D. in Oceanography from the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Willis’s research interests lie in estimating both regional and global sea level rise and ocean circulation using NASA satellite data, among others. Because these are connected to global climate change, he also participates in public outreach efforts to communicate their significance.

You can wave your hands at the people that put together the website itself if it makes you feel better. You will always remain an ignorant fool.

[Wild Cobra]

But it's just the three writing the material, and their consensus page is a lie.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But it's just the three writing the material, and their consensus page is a lie.

Bull . You are ignorant of even what an editor does.

The concensus page cites

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America
International academies: Joint statement
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Ins ute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Ins ute of Biological Sciences
American Ins ute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Ins ute of Marine Science
Australian Ins ute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Ins ute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Ins ute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Ins ute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Ins ution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Ins ute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Ins ute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Ins ute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Ins ution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Ins ution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences


J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

[Spurminator]

Because the climate section is a space given to three bloggers who run it, and have no science credentials.

Ever look up the three names at the bottom... What their credentials are?

They lie about what those six or seven consensus papers actually say.

But it's just the three writing the material, and their consensus page is a lie.

Holy this is some lazy excuse-making.

You really think NASA's just leaving it to the page editors to editorialize however they want?

[Thread]

Holy this is some lazy excuse-making.

You really think NASA's just leaving it to the page editors to editorialize however they want?

If it'll keep 'em in those plum jobs,,,abso in'lutely.

[boutons_deux]

discussing global warming with WC? G M A F B