Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[Swampgator]

The U.S. nutritional guidelines are put together with lots of inputs by lobbyists (just like the anti-AGW political stance). If you want a good source of nutritional information, check out Harvard.

Based on what you say, you don't accept relativity theory either because we don't have the capability of approaching light speed, so it can't be tested. That's really not how science works. Science is a method of investigation (I get very upset when anyone says they believe in science--that brings science down to the level of superstition). Science builds on past discoveries to form hypothesis and then theories. To disprove a theory, a competing theory needs to be developed and then observations made against the two, or more, competing theories. Right now AGW is the only theory that matches the observations, and it's been tested many times in the past 100+ years. We'd be on the road to recovery now if it weren't for the vested interests pouring money into doubt, just the same as the tobacco industry did.

Oh yeah, Harvard. Walter Willet Vegetarian pusher of epidemiology as a causal identifier.

 

[SageBrush]

Maybe I was unclear, NWD: The comparison is disingenuous. You should not compare denying genocide with denying whatever scientific theories and research that support global warming. Whether they molest, cherry-pick, or distort is irrelevant. The Holocaust is alive and in the memories of a lot of people worldwide. People died. Can't say the same (yet, anyway) about the current state of affairs.

I'm fine with calling these AGW fools denialists. Or deniers. Or morons.
Although put to the vote I think I would choose 'Flat Earther' (by fiat)

Regards,
A Jew with family murdered in the holocaust

 

[SageBrush]

invocation of consensus ...

of experts is rational.

Debating the science of AGW with a pharmacist is irrational

 

[ohmman]

Oh yeah, Harvard. Walter Willet Vegetarian pusher of epidemiology as a causal identifier.

Ad hominem...

 

[nwdiver]

Ad hominem...

You'd have more luck telling a fish not to swim...

 

[winfield100]

You already have. I'm used to that. But is it you that is sounding an alarm, trying to get everyone to change the entire world economy by government force, you don't think that is alarmist? Why? Because of the moral superiority of your positions?

p.s. I already know the answers.

@Swampgator

Moral superiority?
what fever dream did that thought come out of?

that is a weird definition of 97%+ consensus, over 100 years of increasing evidence
your "arguments" flail at best, having been refuted here numerous times to the point of you calling names in the "nanny nanny, boo boo" level of expertise.
Since you already know the answers, why are you trying here? (other than to troll to get "Tension, apprehension and dissension")
since you flippantly tosser around the word superiority,

what is your goal here, really?
waste our time?
spoil the forum?
what is your goal here, really?

 

[JRP3]

There are lots of RCTs showing that low carb high fat (ketogenic) diets work better for weight loss, and can even CURE type 2 diabetes.

Wrong thread of course, but...
Low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet impairs anaerobic exercise performance in exercise-trained women and men: a randomized-sequence crossover trial
Short-Term Low-Carbohydrate High-Fat Diet in Healthy Young Males Renders the Endothelium Susceptible to Hyperglycemia-Induced Damage
Low-Carb Diet Tied to Common Heart Rhythm Disorder

 

[SR22pilot]

First, as far as testable, I find AGW very testable. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is testable. That it operates at other frequencies than water vapor so that it is additive to water vapor is testable. Also that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric CO2 is testable. If atmospheric CO2 was going down then the denier community might have a point.

I continue to ask that an alternative source of the rapidly rising CO2 be given. I am told that CO2 has risen in the past. Fair enough. It hasn't risen at this rapid of a rate except during catastrophic events so point that out to me. Explain the RATE of CO2 increase.

The way the null hypothesis has been bandied about in this thread is just wrapping the Merchants of Doubt technique in different language. A proper use of null hypothesis would require showing that the CO2 variation is statistically irrelevant in that it is within sampling errors. That isn't true. Here is a definition of null hypothesis:

The hypothesis that there is no significant difference between specified populations, any observed difference being due to sampling or experimental error

We are quite good at measuring CO2 concentration. The current measurements are well beyond any measurement errors. The rise is definitely statistically meaningful.

By the way, if you want to call me an alarmist then feel free. If i am in a house and I see a massive fire I will be screaming "fire." If that is being alarmist then so be it.

 

[Swampgator]

@Swampgator

Moral superiority?
what fever dream did that thought come out of?

that is a weird definition of 97%+ consensus, over 100 years of increasing evidence
your "arguments" flail at best, having been refuted here numerous times to the point of you calling names in the "nanny nanny, boo boo" level of expertise.
Since you already know the answers, why are you trying here? (other than to troll to get "Tension, apprehension and dissension")
since you flippantly tosser around the word superiority,

what is your goal here, really?
waste our time?
spoil the forum?
what is your goal here, really?

My goal is to discuss CAGW theory. Sorry if I am upsetting your echo chamber.

 

[Swampgator]

Wrong thread of course, but...
Low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet impairs anaerobic exercise performance in exercise-trained women and men: a randomized-sequence crossover trial
Short-Term Low-Carbohydrate High-Fat Diet in Healthy Young Males Renders the Endothelium Susceptible to Hyperglycemia-Induced Damage
Low-Carb Diet Tied to Common Heart Rhythm Disorder

Nice try, Is that the best you can do JRP3?

#1 a 4 day exercise trial. If you take someone who is carbohydrate adapted metabolically you can't convert to fat adapted metabolism in 4 days.
#2 A 7 day trial measuring epithelial susceptibility to HYPERglycemia? Um, OK. You don't get HYPER glycemia on a low carb, high fat diet. They had to literally feed them 75 grams of sugar after the LCHF diet to induce the hyperglycemia.
#3. Epidemiological study, Using personal recall of past diet. Cannot show causality as I have stated multiple times in the past. Here, this is literally from the lead author of that study: Zhuang said that while the research shows an association, it cannot prove cause and effect
For example: It is entirely possible that persons reporting eating very little carbohydrate intake in their recent diet were doing so because they were already obese, and possible ill with Diabetes, heart disease etc. That is why only RCT can demonstrate causality. The trial I link was a randomized, 2 year trial. 52% of type 2 diabetics were essentially cured of diabetes. If that trial were of a drug, it would be all over the news. But since it goes against the current diet consensus it got a few mentions and then went away. Hey, lots of money to be made in the diabetes area. Yes, off topic, but thanks for making my point, Mr consensus diet police.

 

[SageBrush]

The way the null hypothesis has been bandied about in this thread is just wrapping the Merchants of Doubt technique in different language. A proper use of null hypothesis would require showing that the CO2 variation is statistically irrelevant in that it is within sampling errors. That isn't true. Here is a definition of null hypothesis:

The hypothesis that there is no significant difference between specified populations, any observed difference being due to sampling or experimental error

Exactly.

I told the local denialists just this in another thread but, and you may not believe this, they ignored the information.

 

[JRP3]

Cannot show causality as I have stated multiple times in the past.

That's what they said about cigarette smoking as well. The main point of my links was there is evidence that keto may not be as wonderful as some claim.

 

[Swampgator]

That's what they said about cigarette smoking as well. The main point of my links was there is evidence that keto may not be as wonderful as some claim.

That evidence is very weak and low quality. Did you even read my point by point rebuttals, or you just choose to deflect and ignore?

There are only 3 macro-nutrients. If you are advised to eat a low fat diet, you have no choice but to eat a high carb diet, as animal proteins are intertwined with fat. Dietary guidelines today still recommend a low fat diet, with zero RCT evidence that it is healthy. Those guidelines originated in the 1970s. All you have to do to see how that experiment has worked out is go the local shopping center and look around.

 

[Mader Levap]

Please stop using the word denier. It is pejorative and designed to equate anyone who disagrees with CAGW theory to Holocaust deniers.

I find this comparison pretty fitting, since many scenarios (increasing emissions evermore/business as usual/doing nothing/dragging feet) of climate change have quite high body count - running gamut from heatstrokes to wars. And that's not counting people displaced or negatively affected in other ways.

Only difference is that those are future (thus still avoidable), not past victims. Well, mostly future. Victims of unheard-of-before heatwaves and other unusual weather events could be already counted in this tally.

So yes, I fully embrace this term with all connotations and implications. It is rightfully, inherently and deservedly pejorative, since "someone that forms an ideologically driven conclusion based on nothing and molests, cherry-picks and distorts reality to fit that conclusion" is not something that anyone will think is positive.

 

[Swampgator]

"someone that forms an ideologically driven conclusion based on nothing and molests, cherry-picks and distorts reality to fit that conclusion" is not something that anyone will think is positive.

Wow, project much?

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

Wow, project much?

No.

It's spot on.

You are a science denier.

 

[Swampgator]

No.

It's spot on.

You are a science denier.

Oh really? I don't deny science at all. You just don't understand that science is a PROCESS and not a set of agreed upon facts.

CAGW alarmist.

 

[Swampgator]

Oh really? I don't deny science at all. You just don't understand that science is a PROCESS and not a set of agreed upon facts.

CAGW alarmist.

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong

 

[nwdiver]

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong

An experiment like this?

 

[jrad6515]

Let me tell you that consensus moves at a glacial pace even when proven wrong. A great example are the US nutritional guidelines. Low fat high carb diets have been proven to be non effective as well as harmful. They have been in place and largely followed, for 40+ years, yet we have a diabetes explosion both in US and now China. There are lots of RCTs showing that low carb high fat (ketogenic) diets work better for weight loss, and can even CURE type 2 diabetes. Long-Term Effects of a Novel Continuous Remote Care Intervention Including Nutritional Ketosis for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A 2-Year Non-randomized Clinical Trial Yet even posting this here is likely to get me attacked by the nutritional consensus police.
Eventually the guidelines will be re-written to reflect the growing consensus that low fat diets do not work and are harmful, and that high fat low carb diets are healthier. I may however be dead before that happens.

The null hypothesis is that recent global warming is mostly natural variation. If the CAGW theory fails, then we are still left with the null hypothesis.
I know skeptical science will try and say somehow the null hypothesis method of science does not apply to CAGW theory. They are wrong.

What CAGW does not have is a TESTABLE hypothesis. Which again, is how science is done. As an example: The hypothesis should be " a doubling of CO2 levels will cause the GMT to increase by 3C by 2100."
The issue there is that the only way to test the hypothesis is to measure the co2 and temp in 2100. Since we cannot do that, climate scientists build models to try and predict. If those models fail to predict the temperature increase in 15 years for a given level of co2, how in the world can they predict the increase in 80 years? If they fail at shorter time periods, they are not useful.

Give me an example of a peer reviewed paper that had a AGW testable hypothesis and disproved the null. I really am open minded to read it and dissect the methods and conclusions.

Great post. Funny how the only other person here other than me (you) who seems to understand how the scientific method works believes the same things I do. That just shows you that the majority of the posters here are quasi-religious zealots who have no real interest in or knowledge of the scientific method.