Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

livinglava wrote:

Think of it this way: if journals were rejecting articles containing data supporting climate change theory, there would be people online doing what you are doing, only the other way around. They would be saying that the journals are biased and that they should publish dissenting views.

They would be right to complain.

I have not expressed such a view and do not hold such a view.

For the record, I don't hold any view at all on this issue besides the view that we should not trust the claims of bogus science.

livinglava wrote:

What is needed is substantial discussion of why/how climate works, not discussion about the politics of journalistic bias for or against a certain theory of climate.

What we need are reliable facts based on sound science.

Unfortunately we are not going to get that. But that doesn't mean we should trust the bogus claims of the climate hucksters.

There is no reason to think that the scientists whose data is being suppressed have any motivation other than good science.

livinglava wrote:

Regardless of some people's motives, the goal should be to gain at least an understanding of the basic relationship between energy and carbon in generating a biosphere of ecosystems and the fossil fuels that form from their sediments.

Not possible without good data.

livinglava wrote:

Then you need to sit down and learn how energy works, how living things that make up ecosystems are made up of carbon, how energy from the sun is taken up by those organisms and ecosystems, and how their dropping sediment over time to build up as fossil fuels.

I perceive no such need.

livinglava wrote:

Once you understand the basics, you may have reason to debate about climate, but until then you just have no idea what you're talking about.

That is incorrect. My point about bad data is well grounded in fact.

livinglava wrote:

All you probably know is that you like industrial economics and consumerisms and you are afraid it is being threatened by climate science politics.

I know that climate change journals are suppressing data and skewing the results.

All I want to do is disregard unreliable data.

How can you question science and/or discern when science is 'bogus,' without having some understanding of what would make science legitimate?

You post a superficial soundbite in response to something substantial that I said?

You need to start studying basic science and formulate some idea of what legitimate science would include and what it would not. You may be right that there is bogus science, but then you have to have a way of evaluating it besides just deeming it 'bogus' because some journal editors are politically biased.

pretty much any of your posts proves farmer is right

In other words, you want to ignore everything that does not support your ideological bias.

And unfortunately the mountains of accurate data do not support your ideological bias.

Of course there is.

You have the data already.

If you don't have any understanding of energy in all its forms, then how can you even begin to decipher good science from bad science?

How is that possible?

Lies are data. Slander is data. Fake news is data. You could say that all publications that reject lies, slander, and fake news are 'suppressing data.' That doesn't mean they should publish lies, slander, and fake news, though, does it?

That what you are criticizing journals for doing when they 'suppress data and skew results.'

[...]
The Trump administration is about to distribute billions of dollars to coastal states mainly in the South to help steel them against natural disasters worsened by climate change.

But states that qualify must first explain why they need the money. That has triggered linguistic acrobatics as some conservative states submit lengthy, detailed proposals on how they will use the money, while mostly not mentioning climate change.

A 306-page draft proposal from Texas doesn’t use the terms “climate change” or “global warming,” nor does South Carolina’s proposal. Instead, Texas refers to “changing coastal conditions” and South Carolina talks about the “destabilizing effects and unpredictability” of being hit by three major storms in four years, while being barely missed by three other hurricanes.

Louisiana, a state taking some of the most aggressive steps in the nation to prepare for climate change, does include the phrase “climate change” in its proposal in one place, an appendix on the final page.
[...]
The housing department has itself been careful about how it described the program’s goals. When HUD in August released the rules governing the money, it didn’t use the terms “climate change” and “global warming” but referred to “changing environmental conditions.”

Still, the rule required states that received money to describe their “current and future risks.” And when those risks included flooding — the most costly type of disaster nationwide — states were instructed to account for “continued sea level rise,” which is one consequence of global warming.
... ... ...

When you see legitimate science being blocked from publication because progressives find the data inconvenient, you know that the data is being skewed.

livinglava wrote:

You post a superficial soundbite in response to something substantial that I said?

The need for reliable data is not superficial. Accurate conclusions cannot be arrived at without accurate data.

livinglava wrote:

You need to start studying basic science and formulate some idea of what legitimate science would include and what it would not. You may be right that there is bogus science, but then you have to have a way of evaluating it besides just deeming it 'bogus' because some journal editors are politically biased.

I do not agree that I need to do this.

livinglava wrote:

You have the data already.

That is incorrect. There is no reliable data to be had since the journals are cherry picking it.

livinglava wrote:

If you don't have any understanding of energy in all its forms, then how can you even begin to decipher good science from bad science?

When I see data being censored because people don't like what it says, I know that the result is bad science.

Because it is a fact that journals are censoring data that they find inconvenient.

No. But it doesn't change the fact that scientists should be allowed to publish accurate data without being censored.

No. I am criticizing them for disregarding reliable data.

Abstract: This research explains the factors that contribute to the global increase in the frequency of intense hydrometeorological disasters, particularly those related to floods and storms. It describes how the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) accumulation and its associated changes in climatic patterns contribute to the increased frequency of these intense events. The novelty of this study lies in how climate effects are examined within a socioeconomic framework that includes factors that turn natural hazards into intense disasters. These factors include people’s increasing exposure and their vulnerability to these hazards.

This study uses climate data from 155 countries, with a period spanning 46 years (1970–2016). It adopts a statistical and econometric approach, instead of climate models, to assess the factors that have contributed to the increase in the frequency of intense flood and storm events. The findings show that in addition to socioeconomic factors, the continuous increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the past four decades is significantly correlated with the increase in the number of extreme flood and storm events. Moreover, the results show that global climate conditions significantly affect the frequency of these disasters.

The estimates in this study further suggest that if current trends in environmental degradation and CO2 accumulation remain unchecked, then the frequency of intense hydrometeorological disasters would increase. Our results also highlight the link between climate change and natural hazards, and support the broader pathways between climate hazards and socioeconomic variables traced by Mora et al. (2018). This scenario is a ground for the immediate implementation of adaptation measures and for taking strong mitigation measures to reverse runaway climate change.

This has been going on since the 1930 when the cigarette companies declared cigarettes a health substance.

What this would all mean in terms of human pain and suffering ought to be enough to make us want to avoid these thresholds at all cost. Heat waves, droughts, and other forms of extreme weather will increase in frequency and severity. Agriculture will become less reliable and suffer declining yields. Rising sea-levels will mean the submersion of many coastal regions. Accustomed to the relatively stable climate that prevailed during the “Holocene,” the geological epoch since the last ice age, our societies will buckle under the new conditions created by our experiment with fossil fuels. Skirmishes, if not outright wars, will result over arable land and dwindling fresh-water reserves, and mass migration from the parched climates around the Equator will provoke nationalist backlashes in the habitable parts of the world. All against a backdrop of raging wildfires. A grim future indeed.

Most discussions of the environmental crisis stop there, however. We then go on to demand an end to fossil-fuel extraction and the redoubling of efforts to convert our economies to renewable forms of energy. Initiatives such as the Green New Deal express a growing sentiment that the private sector will not by itself “transition” its practices, let alone those of our society as a whole, toward a more sustainable energy system. If anything, the opposite is the case: the revelation that oil multinationals such as Exxon Mobile have for decades known of the ruinous effects of greenhouse gas emissions has justified the suspicion that liberal politics-as-usual will not suffice. With good reason, we now talk of the need for a full-scale social “mobilization” of the kind we engaged in to fight World War II.

(...)

“I don’t believe in it for one instant,” he [Yves Cochet, environmental minister under Lionel Jospin] said. Efforts such as the Green New Deal suffer ultimately “from the technological illusion. It’s the Californian technological dream in disguise.”