ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, April 08, 2016

Scientistry and sciensophy

Keep this sordid history of scientific consensus in mind every time you hear the AGW/CC charlatans selling their global government scam on that basis:
In 1980, after long consultation with some of America’s most senior nutrition scientists, the US government issued its first Dietary Guidelines. The guidelines shaped the diets of hundreds of millions of people. Doctors base their advice on them, food companies develop products to comply with them. Their influence extends beyond the US. In 1983, the UK government issued advice that closely followed the American example.

The most prominent recommendation of both governments was to cut back on saturated fats and cholesterol (this was the first time that the public had been advised to eat less of something, rather than enough of everything). Consumers dutifully obeyed. We replaced steak and sausages with pasta and rice, butter with margarine and vegetable oils, eggs with muesli, and milk with low-fat milk or orange juice. But instead of becoming healthier, we grew fatter and sicker.

Look at a graph of postwar obesity rates and it becomes clear that something changed after 1980. In the US, the line rises very gradually until, in the early 1980s, it takes off like an aeroplane. Just 12% of Americans were obese in 1950, 15% in 1980, 35% by 2000. In the UK, the line is flat for decades until the mid-1980s, at which point it also turns towards the sky. Only 6% of Britons were obese in 1980. In the next 20 years that figure more than trebled. Today, two thirds of Britons are either obese or overweight, making this the fattest country in the EU. Type 2 diabetes, closely related to obesity, has risen in tandem in both countries.

At best, we can conclude that the official guidelines did not achieve their objective; at worst, they led to a decades-long health catastrophe. Naturally, then, a search for culprits has ensued. Scientists are conventionally apolitical figures, but these days, nutrition researchers write editorials and books that resemble liberal activist tracts, fizzing with righteous denunciations of “big sugar” and fast food. Nobody could have predicted, it is said, how the food manufacturers would respond to the injunction against fat – selling us low-fat yoghurts bulked up with sugar, and cakes infused with liver-corroding transfats.

Nutrition scientists are angry with the press for distorting their findings, politicians for failing to heed them, and the rest of us for overeating and under-exercising. In short, everyone – business, media, politicians, consumers – is to blame. Everyone, that is, except scientists....

In a 2015 paper titled Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?, a team of scholars at the National Bureau of Economic Research sought an empirical basis for a remark made by the physicist Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

The researchers identified more than 12,000 “elite” scientists from different fields. The criteria for elite status included funding, number of publications, and whether they were members of the National Academies of Science or the Institute of Medicine. Searching obituaries, the team found 452 who had died before retirement. They then looked to see what happened to the fields from which these celebrated scientists had unexpectedly departed, by analysing publishing patterns.

What they found confirmed the truth of Planck’s maxim. Junior researchers who had worked closely with the elite scientists, authoring papers with them, published less. At the same time, there was a marked increase in papers by newcomers to the field, who were less likely to cite the work of the deceased eminence. The articles by these newcomers were substantive and influential, attracting a high number of citations. They moved the whole field along.

A scientist is part of what the Polish philosopher of science Ludwik Fleck called a “thought collective”: a group of people exchanging ideas in a mutually comprehensible idiom. The group, suggested Fleck, inevitably develops a mind of its own, as the individuals in it converge on a way of communicating, thinking and feeling.

This makes scientific inquiry prone to the eternal rules of human social life: deference to the charismatic, herding towards majority opinion, punishment for deviance, and intense discomfort with admitting to error. Of course, such tendencies are precisely what the scientific method was invented to correct for, and over the long run, it does a good job of it. In the long run, however, we’re all dead, quite possibly sooner than we would be if we hadn’t been following a diet based on poor advice.
It is always necessary - it is absolutely vital - to carefully distinguish between scientody, or the scientific method, and scientistry, which is the scientific profession. The evils described in this article are not indicative of any problems with scientody, they are the consequence of the inevitable and intrinsic flaws with scientistry.

To simply call everything "science" is to be misleading, often, but not always, in innocence. Science has no authority, and increasingly, it is an intentional and deceitful bait-and-switch, in which the overly credulous are led to believe that because an individual with certain credentials is asserting something, that statement is supported by documentary evidence gathered through the scientific method of hypothesis, experiment, and successful replication.

In most - not many, but most - cases, that is simply not the case. Even if you don't use these neologisms to describe the three aspects of science, you must learn to distinguish between them or you will repeatedly fall for this intentional bait-and-switch. In order of reliability, the three aspects of science are:
  • Scientody: the process
  • Scientage: the knowledge base
  • Scientistry: the profession
We might also coin a new term, sciensophy, as practiced by sciensophists, which is most definitely not an aspect of science, to describe the pseudoscience of "the social sciences", as they do not involve any scientody and their additions to scientage have proven to be generally unreliable. Economics, nutrition, and medicine all tend to fall into this category.

Labels:

137 Comments:

Anonymous Aachen April 08, 2016 8:11 AM  

Regarding the food guidelines I remember having them shoved down my throat so to speak by school teachers and the government when I was a child, year after year. We were made to do tests on it and memorise it as the only way to stay healthy.

Considering the model is wrong, made people a lot unhealthier and crucially the science was never validated enough to be telling people, especially children what to eat through a massive government campaign could it be possible to sue the education system or the government?

Anonymous Thursdaythe12th April 08, 2016 8:15 AM  

"The evils described in this article are not indicative of any problems with scientody, they are the consequence of the inevitable and intrinsic flaws with scientody."

I presume the second 'scientody' is meant to be 'scientistry'?.

Good points to bring up with the fetishists.

OpenID dantealiegri April 08, 2016 8:17 AM  

The irony of the situation is that the reason they don't include scientody is because setting up useful experiments is harder as removing or neutralizing untested variables is harder.

Whether that makes true results from them more valuable, I'm not sure ..

Blogger dc.sunsets April 08, 2016 8:25 AM  

This is the source of vast Error Pyramids today, the "magic" of "science" as the irrefutable rationale for political compulsion.

"Anthropogenic" Global Warming (or cooling, or storms, whatever) is but one prominent pyramid.

HIV/AIDS is in all likelihood another, just as was the dietary-cholesterol-causes-atherosclerosis pyramid.

CFC's-in-refrigerants-caused-the-ozone-hole is another, and a poster-child for what happens once an idiotic notion gets embedded in law: everyone stops paying attention, and doesn't notice that the entire paradigm was daffy, but the cost-burden never goes away.

Blogger VD April 08, 2016 8:25 AM  

I presume the second 'scientody' is meant to be 'scientistry'?

Yes, corrected.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling April 08, 2016 8:26 AM  

The "scientific" crusade against dietary fat started in the mid-50s, and was very strong in all the popular media Middle America was consuming by the 1970s. So I wonder about there being any causation with this particular government action in 1980.

I would guess, if there is causation here (which I'm leaning towards without investigating it thoroughly yet, for example, I want to see what Gary Taubes's NuSI studies come up with), is that the general campaign by our betters started really taking effect as younger generations like whichever one @1 Aachen is in were sufficiently propagandized. I'd also look at how people got their food during all this, an old guy like my Silent Generation father who still prepares a lot of his food is still eating a lot of fat, without apparently suffering from it.

However, as rhetoric, this correctional is certainly useful, we've got ... well, the US will very possibly fall before we really turn the tide in this, and that would unfortunately probably increase the grains a lot of people eat. So I guess it's best we get our best hits in sooner rather than later.

Blogger Phillip George April 08, 2016 8:31 AM  

Transorbital frontal lobotomies were also medical science! funnily enough like female genital mutilations there was never a prosecution. Waiting for the criminals to die worked in one way, won't work in another.

The plural of anecdote is evidence, was the original and true quote. Tough pill to swallow. Bottom line, epistemology and bible remain. Theology is King of Sciences. But that's a whole resurrection argument.

Blogger dc.sunsets April 08, 2016 8:34 AM  

Now that Political Funding underlies almost all scientific inquiry, it should be clear that the vast majority of scientists are simply the clergy for sciensophy, the dominant state-sanctioned religion today. This is no different in the so-called hard sciences than in the junk sciences of sociology, etc.

In the 14th century people were told what to do and how to think because the King and the Church said so.

Replace "Church" with "Scientists" and how has anything changed, except that now (in the West) the New-Church and the King are one in the same organization, run by the Equalist Cult under the banners of democracy, equality and fraternity?

Convergence indeed. To the most doctrinaire Left Cultist, Islamic theocracies make perfect sense.

Blogger dc.sunsets April 08, 2016 8:40 AM  

I witnessed with my own eyes, in a relatively simple experiment (impossible, really, to screw up) that the dominant physiology textbook used to train nearly all physicians and physiologists for years was dead wrong on the pathways autonomic nerves took from the central nervous system to the heart.

Did the author of that textbook take note? No, despite the fact that the principle investigator for whom I worked was the immediate past-president of the American Physiological Society.

It's not what we don't know that's the problem; it's what we think we know that just ain't so.

Anonymous Heh April 08, 2016 8:45 AM  

Ah, I remember when I was a kid and the whole "fat free" thing was yuge. My friend's mom loved to buy those Entenmann's pastries -- hundreds of grams of carb and sugar -- and the box said "FAT FREE!". And my reaction was, "OK, fat free, so these are good for me? That CAN'T be right!"

Blogger Durandel Almiras April 08, 2016 8:46 AM  

The group, suggested Fleck, inevitably develops a mind of its own, as the individuals in it converge on a way of communicating, thinking and feeling.

Social Awkwardness Convergence?

Vox, there is another book idea in all of this. The Church of Scientistry needs to be taken down a few pegs.

Anonymous Eduardo April 08, 2016 8:51 AM  

I second that motion person above me!

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 08, 2016 8:54 AM  

Aachen wrote:could it be possible to sue the education system or the government?
The Federal Reserve can't print that much money.

dc.sunsets wrote:"Anthropogenic" Global Warming (or cooling, or storms, whatever) is but one prominent pyramid.
First level of denial:  "it's not happening."  That's now untenable.
When things like the documented shortening of winter at high latitudes, thawing of permafrost and loss of ice shelves that had been stable for tens of thousands of years killed level 1, they fell back to the second level:  "it's happening but we don't have anything to do with it."

Leftards say the same thing about the gross dysgenic and dyscivic effects of "equal rights", no-fault divorce and mass immigration.  The dogmas are the equivalent of sciensophy; go learn some scientody.  Yes, science is hard.  That is not an excuse for opining out of ignorance.

CFC's-in-refrigerants-caused-the-ozone-hole is another
Sorry, it's been proven by time; the ozone hole has stopped growing as the CFC inventory has slowly depleted.

Ironically, the Montreal Protocol has been the most effective measure against anthropogenic climate change ever to be implemented.

Blogger tz April 08, 2016 8:57 AM  

Scientrash - dumped odd a peer reviewed journal (no, I didn't try replicating or checked the math)
ScienTED - politicized
Scientious - either missing the "con" or a variant of pretentious

Anonymous Silly But True April 08, 2016 9:06 AM  

This discussion is very timely. 1890s through 1920s saw a massive explosion of technological innovation, so much was occurring at so quick a pace that there wasn't enough time to think through the ramifications of any individual innovation much less how they compounded each other.

It was against this backdrop that the seed was planted that the government was corrupt and bore the fruit that the incumbent political machines had to be broken as gatekeepers of power so that better means towards a direct and socially desirable democracy could be established.

Does any of this sound familiar?

This was at least the outwardly stated goal of the movement that created Prohibition, Taylorism (or policy founded on "science"), the creation of the academic research professor whose sole purpose was to deliver such science-based papers so that new policies could be founded upon. As this grand experiment exploded, the scientific method was applied to economics, government, industry, finance, medicine, schooling, and even theology, to give them the perception of additional authority. They marched to the slogan "for our own good," and decried that the old ways needed to be turned asunder for being wasteful and inefficient as compared to this new the "one best system."

It produced the federal income tax, eugenics, abortion on a massive scale, and began the transformation from a producer-based society to a leisure based society of consumption.

Now that we see what 100 years of this approach hath wrought, especially on the global warming front, we are reminded of Eisenhower's famous parting warning about the dire threats facing us. Most remember Eisenhower's January 17, 1961, farewell speech for coining the term "military industrial complex."

Fewer recall that it was but ONE of _TWO_ such warnings:

"But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only. [First... Military-industrial complex...] "...Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. __THE PROSPECT OF DOMINATION OF THE NATION'S SCHOLARS BY FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT, PROJECT ALLOCATIONS, AND THE POWER OF MONEY IS EVER PRESENT -- AND IS GRAVELY REGARDED. YET, IN HOLDING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DISCOVERY IN RESPECT, AS WE SHOULD, WE MUST ALSO BE ALERT TO THE EQUAL AND OPPOSITE DANGER THAT PUBLIC POLICY COULD ITSELF BECOME THE CAPTIVE OF A SCIENTIFIC-TECHNOLOGICAL ELITE."

Scientific-technological elite.

Whenever someone decries the horrors of the military-industrial complex, it's a good segue to remind them that we were warned of two threats to our existence, not just one, the other being equally as horrible and what Eisenhower also coined as the term, scientific-technological elite.

Anonymous VFM #6306 April 08, 2016 9:15 AM  

I have seen the practice of scientody in the sciensophic fields. It is so rare as to be a coincidence.

Blogger tz April 08, 2016 9:16 AM  

I found that linked from dietdoctor.com - a few days ago I had to chide him on an article "low carb and climate change".

Blogger tz April 08, 2016 9:21 AM  

No the CFC ozone hole was another hoax. It grew when Mt. Pinatubo pushed billions of pounds of chorine into the stratosphere. CFCs drop to the ground and are destroyed by bacteria. But DuPont's patents on making and using CFCs expired,and they had a patented replacement.

Anonymous Athor Pel April 08, 2016 9:26 AM  

" 13. Anonymous Mr. Rational April 08, 2016 8:54 AM
...
Sorry, it's been proven by time; the ozone hole has stopped growing as the CFC inventory has slowly depleted.
..."



How do the CFC's get to the upper atmosphere? They're heavier than air. Please, enlighten us.

Now to nitpick your very words. You said, "...proven by time...". I'm sorry but time as the sole cause is the very definition of correlation rather than casuation.

Do better.

Blogger pyrrhus April 08, 2016 9:30 AM  

It is now being suggested that the Ozone hole over Antarctica, which doesn't seem to change though it varies seasonally, has been there forever. Since it couldn't be observed prior to satellites, looks like a methodology flaw...assuming that it was new without evidence. As Taleb says, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Blogger John S April 08, 2016 9:40 AM  

Hmm... Seems like if we could somehow arrange for much more frequent scientist funerals, we might soon enter a new golden age of knowledge...

That's my hypothesis, anyway.

Anonymous Satan's Hamster April 08, 2016 9:46 AM  

"It is now being suggested that the Ozone hole over Antarctica, which doesn't seem to change though it varies seasonally, has been there forever."

Now? People were pointing that out years ago. I believe Chinese scientists found circumstantial evidence that it's been around for centuries.

BTW, don't forget the DDT scam. Banning DDT may have killed even more people than Communism.

Oh, and Nuclear Winter, the precursor to Global Warming. Lots of wonderful computer models, not a single connection to the real world. Millions were going to die from the smoke when Saddam Hussein set Kuwait's oil wells alight, and... they didn't.

Blogger Dexter April 08, 2016 9:47 AM  

How do the CFC's get to the upper atmosphere? They're heavier than air. Please, enlighten us.

They are sprayed there by government aircraft as part of the toxic chemtrails mix. DUH!

Blogger Student in Blue April 08, 2016 9:50 AM  

Hmm... Seems like if we could somehow arrange for much more frequent scientist funerals, we might soon enter a new golden age of knowledge...

That's my hypothesis, anyway.


Scientody demands we test this!

Blogger Nate April 08, 2016 9:50 AM  

"Economics, nutrition, and medicine all tend to fall into this category."

This category strikes me as philosophies that become dangerous when people pretend they are sciences... such as economics.

Medicine however is a science that doesn't become dangerous until people try to make a philosophy out of it.

Anonymous Athor Pel April 08, 2016 10:03 AM  

"23. Blogger Dexter April 08, 2016 9:47 AM
How do the CFC's get to the upper atmosphere? They're heavier than air. Please, enlighten us.

They are sprayed there by government aircraft as part of the toxic chemtrails mix. DUH!
."



No, no no. Chemtrails are aluminum nano-particles, which goes along with the aluminum tolerant GMO crops being patented. Come on. Keep up.

Anonymous Ezekiel Cassandros April 08, 2016 10:15 AM  

tz wrote:ScienTED - politicized

The other two you mentioned are just forms of scientistry, but this one is notable. I think it needs a better name, but it's definitely a lower yet very influential place on the hierarchy. It is not just the fact that scientistry demands you believe in global warming and 70 vaccines before 18 and DDT is carcinogenic bird genocide; the fact that there is reams of government funding involved and therefore disagreeing means you're a crazy right wing nutjob helps lock the scientistry in place.

Scientics?

At any rate, information should flow from the top down on the hierarchy; but when an error penetrates, the damage flows back up. People have a natural bias for massaging data and methods to get the "correct" result; even more so when the scientific community tells them that certain conclusions are required; even more, when the scientists know that going against the flow would mean losing government funding and bringing down the wrath of the media and the public.

Anonymous Millenium April 08, 2016 10:24 AM  

@13 Nice bait and switch. The climate is changing so its obviously mankind's fault.

1. Do you believe the climate is unchanging?
2a. If yes, what should the permanent global temp be?
2b. If no, do you believe it goes through cycles?
3a. If yes to 2a, how do you explain ice ages, shifting seas, vineyards in London?
3b. If yes to 2b do you believe our current changing climate is just one of these cycles?
If no to 3, why not
4. What makes you believe man is the sole, or primary, driver?
5. Have you controlled for solar variation?
6. Have you controlled for any volcanic influence?

Blogger dc.sunsets April 08, 2016 10:26 AM  

Medicine however is a science that doesn't become dangerous until people try to make a philosophy out of it.

Naw, it became dangerous when it became an arm of the political system, i.e., the Cult formed a the marriage of state and Science-the-new-religion.

Frederick Taylor lives on in "best practices" and my favorite, "evidence-based-medicine."

"One Best Way" is the banner of centralizers, and is identical to "Only One Thought Allowed," to be determined by a committee formed by a legislative edict.

Anonymous Millenium April 08, 2016 10:26 AM  

@13 Nice bait and switch. The climate is changing so its obviously mankind's fault.

1. Do you believe the climate is unchanging?
2a. If yes, what should the permanent global temp be?
2b. If no, do you believe it goes through cycles?
3a. If yes to 2a, how do you explain ice ages, shifting seas, vineyards in London?
3b. If yes to 2b do you believe our current changing climate is just one of these cycles?
If no to 3, why not
4. What makes you believe man is the sole, or primary, driver?
5. Have you controlled for solar variation?
6. Have you controlled for any volcanic influence?

Blogger dc.sunsets April 08, 2016 10:30 AM  

go learn some scientody. Yes, science is hard. That is not an excuse for opining out of ignorance.

I see your "knowledge" and raise you a degree or two, plus decades of experience in "science." Then I'll go all-in with IQ.

FTR, my GRE analytical was 98th percentile. Yours?

Never ending entertainment from people who always think they're the smartest person in every room they enter.

Blogger maniacprovost April 08, 2016 10:37 AM  

I'm going to say the point of this blog post (other than don't trust science) is that sometimes you have to make up your own terms to help separate layers of abstract meaning.

But distinguishing between "ethics," a system of interaction between rational beings, and "morality," right and wrong, is needless redefinition of terms, because is and ought.

Anonymous Millenium April 08, 2016 10:44 AM  

The low fat craze is an example of bad scientific method coupled with a bureacratic push. Ancel Keys did not do an experiment or even an observational study but merely took the rates of heart disease and meat consumption of 22 countries, cut out all but 7 of them and failed to control for other factors (these were all rich countries) and then the WHO and others got behind this shoddy research.

Anonymous Satan's Hamster April 08, 2016 10:46 AM  

"Nice bait and switch. The climate is changing so its obviously mankind's fault."

Note how they switched from 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change' when the planet stopped warming? They no longer use a rising temperature as PROOF that humans are DESTROYING THE EARTH! because the temperature is no longer warming, and completely out of sync with the glorious computer models. Instead, ice is melting in Butfukistan, and that's PROOF that humans are DESTROYING ThE WORLD! even though temperatures aren't changing.

Note also that Science proved in the 70s that we were entering a period of Global Cooling, and we could prevent it by burning less fossil fuels. Then, by the 90s, Science proved that we were in a period of Global Warming, and we could prevent it by burning less fossil fuels. In some cases, it was even the same scientists who'd jumped from Global Cooling to Global Warming in a couple of decades.

Almost as though the goal is to destroy the fossil fuel industry, not to SAVE THE WORLD, and they'll take any excuse to do so.

(Oh, and don't forget the perpetual 'adjusting' of the historical temperature record to create warming that never existed. I wish I'd known I could simply 'adjust' my data to get the results I wanted back when I was at school, because it would have made my life so much easier.

Blogger praetorian April 08, 2016 10:46 AM  

> anthropogenic climate change
> Mr. Rational
> Obvious post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy

(kek)

"When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything." --Karl Marx

Blogger Starbuck April 08, 2016 10:46 AM  

I see your "knowledge" and raise you a degree or two, plus decades of experience in "science." Then I'll go all-in with IQ.

FTR, my GRE analytical was 98th percentile. Yours?

Never ending entertainment from people who always think they're the smartest person in every room they enter. - dc.sunsets


With that kind of arrogant/insulting attitude someone might call your bluff and raise you a .45 semi automatic, or revolver.. Careful, make sure you are packin when your lips are smackin.

Blogger jay c April 08, 2016 10:56 AM  

Biology can be science. Medicine is blindfolded engineering.

Blogger dc.sunsets April 08, 2016 11:03 AM  

@ Starbuck, I don't assume I'm always that person, either. And if I don't know you, I observe the quote attributed to Gen James Mattis, USMC (ret).

I only give back what I get. Preferably in much larger volume.

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 08, 2016 11:17 AM  

tz wrote:the CFC ozone hole was another hoax. It grew when Mt. Pinatubo pushed billions of pounds of chorine into the stratosphere.
This is what I mean when I say "science is hard".  It's harder when you get your "education" from talk radio.  Volcanoes do not emit insoluble chlorine gases.  They emit hydrogen chloride and sulfuric acid, which are very soluble in water and rain out quickly.

CFCs drop to the ground and are destroyed by bacteria.
If that was true, there would have been no steady increase in CFC concentrations over time unti the ban (source), bacteria would have eaten the freon in plastic foams (and likely the foams themselves), and xenon (atwt = 131) would form an asphyxiating layer on the ground more than CFC-12 (mw = 121 in a bigger molecule).

Knowing a few facts can keep you from spouting such nonsense, but "ignorance is strength" in your world as much as Orwell's.

But DuPont's patents on making and using CFCs expired,and they had a patented replacement.
That's not why CFCs were banned, but that is why the US got a menu of HFCs instead of the isobutane they switched to in Europe.  Isobutane is dirt cheap.

Athor Pel wrote:How do the CFC's get to the upper atmosphere? They're heavier than air. Please, enlighten us.
I know you think that's a takedown, but there are these phenomena called "diffusion" which mixes things quickly over short distances and slowly over longer distances, and "convection" and "advection" which mix things quickly over long distances.  Refer also to the distribution of xenon which would stratify even more strongly than CFCs if "talk radio science" had the slightest bit of validity.

You said, "...proven by time...". I'm sorry but time as the sole cause is the very definition of correlation rather than casuation.
Show any other factor than the Montreal ban which could have caused the reversal in CFC-11 concentrations shown in the graph linked above.  The ban was specifically implemented to cause that reversal, and has done so.  Let's see you weasel your way out of that one.

Do better.
You could have remained silent, but here you've removed all doubt.

pyrrhus wrote:It is now being suggested that the Ozone hole over Antarctica, which doesn't seem to change though it varies seasonally, has been there forever. Since it couldn't be observed prior to satellites, looks like a methodology flaw.
Antarctic ozone levels have been measured since the setup for the International Geophysical Year in 1956.  There was no ozone hole in 1956.

The simplest search would have found this and disabused you of the talk-radio nonsense.  But MPAI, people to whom evidence and history matter nothing most of all.

dc.sunsets wrote:I see your "knowledge" and raise you a degree or two, plus decades of experience in "science." Then I'll go all-in with IQ.
Great!  Now show me how your education and brains make the physical measurements of CFCs and ozone concentrations all wrong.

More I cannot write ATM, I've got some analysis and writing that isn't going to do itself.

Anonymous Gen. Kong April 08, 2016 11:22 AM  

d.c. sunsets:
This is the source of vast Error Pyramids today, the "magic" of "science" as the irrefutable rationale for political compulsion.

"Anthropogenic" Global Warming (or cooling, or storms, whatever) is but one prominent pyramid.

HIV/AIDS is in all likelihood another, just as was the dietary-cholesterol-causes-atherosclerosis pyramid.

CFC's-in-refrigerants-caused-the-ozone-hole is another, and a poster-child for what happens once an idiotic notion gets embedded in law: everyone stops paying attention, and doesn't notice that the entire paradigm was daffy, but the cost-burden never goes away.


Your observations about error-pyramids are correct and the ones you cited are simply three of the more prominent ones in the "scientific" field. Here are some other error-pyramids:

*Equality, and it's corollary tabula-rasa notions

*Free trade

*Keynesian debt-racketeering

There are others of course, but these are another three than pop into mind.

Anonymous Eduardo April 08, 2016 11:25 AM  

ScienTED. I had to laugh. Friend of mine showed me TED some years ago, 5-6 years ago; I didnt got interested, had already lost interest in discovery channel, didn't feel like watching long talks of people telling we gonna live 1000 years, or Dennett and his awesome argument of confusing consciouss with perception and showing that we are not all that consciouss because we perceive more details on a painting then there are in it! Well okay, I for one, didn't perceive any such thing, but Dennett in his fertile does so he thinks that, you know, people must do the same thing in this painting or about something else. Yes! I kid you not, that is really the argument the sucka gave... Why didn't anyone speared him right there and then is a mystery with two Y's.

Anyways, friend asks me if he had shown me TED, and I have already rejected the thing and went back to the WAY more fun conspiracy theories stuff so answered him in the affirmative, but i couldn't care less if he never had shown me this; I mean, the damn thing slogan's claimed that TED had ideas worth spreading... Hmmm when will Vox go in the conference? I bet most people here loves his ideas and think they are worth spreading! Well we all the answer, Vox will never be invited, because he engages in badthink, while Dennett and his magnanimous stupid argument is at least within the framework of the lefTED.

But you see that right there is when I started seeing the scientific evangelism, when it became obvious to me that this was technically a sermon telling you what the future will be like, what positions you should have about current issues, who should you vote!!! It was a opinion forming platform, hence the slogan "ideas WORTH spreading;" after all they dictate what is worth to spread, is all about making sure you are indoctrinated in goodthink.

Well education IS THE SAME THING everywhere by the looks of it, and yeah I know a little bit about education since I will be a physics teacher, but it is the same idea, freedom of thought is absolutely badthink and that happens everywhere in the education system especially in universities where the educational system as we know was born. This whole debacle of a news is just part of how universities roll and how the same people created our educational system to be just an extension of their world just for laymen. Sad but true gents.

Blogger Arthur Isaac April 08, 2016 11:32 AM  

@13, yes it's happening. It's been happening since the last little ice age. Go look at the observations of explorers trying to find the Northwest Passage (found it). Especially look at Cook's accounts of the glaciation in Alaska. Those glaciers have been in retreat for a long time. AGW in the age of sail? Please.

Anonymous Clay April 08, 2016 11:45 AM  

OT. But, I swear if Ted Cruz doesn't look like damn Doris Dowling, I'll kiss your ass.

Dude creeps me out.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 08, 2016 11:47 AM  

Medicine however is a science that doesn't become dangerous until people try to make a philosophy out of it.

Medicine is rather difficult to perform true scientody on, since experimenting on people's health is generally considered equivalent to a war crime. But somehow that doesn't stop the CDC and FDA zealots from preaching their nonsense and enlisting government goons to enforce it.

Blogger Escoffier April 08, 2016 11:50 AM  

As someone who lost 300 pounds on lchf I have a more than passing interest in this subject. The only part that makes Mr angry is the blatant dishonesty. Bad dishonest study after bad dishonest study excoriating low carb high fat diets from scientists that clearly don't know the first thing about them. In one example the mice in the low carb cohort were fed thirteen times MORE sugar than the non low carb mice. The only options at that point are mendacity or stupidity. I can scare the link up.

Anonymous BGKB April 08, 2016 11:54 AM  

Don't forget pushing soy with plant estrogens.

HIV/AIDS is in all likelihood another I guess I will have to tell people its safe to go back to the bathhouses.

How do the CFC's get to the upper atmosphere? They're heavier than air. Please, enlighten us.

They cut their long hair, get rid of the high heels, and self identify as HElium.

AGW in the age of sail? Please.

Actually it turns out the Ice Age French sailed to America before the Indians crossed the land bridge.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/ice-age-columbus-who-were-the-first-americans/

Blogger Nate April 08, 2016 11:55 AM  

"Medicine is rather difficult to perform true scientody on, since experimenting on people's health is generally considered equivalent to a war crime."

I shall ruminate aloud... hrmm...


Drug creation is engineering... surgery is craft... neither is science. meta-studies aren't science either.

Fair enough.

Anonymous The other robot April 08, 2016 11:56 AM  

@39:

The graph of the average ozone hole size at the Ozone Watch site (LHS, down a bit) confuses me then, or your claims confuse me.

If the ban on CFCs was to fix the ozone hole issue, it seems not to have done so.

Life is so confusing, perhaps you can help me reduce my confusion.

OpenID denektenorsk April 08, 2016 11:56 AM  

I'll keep my contrarian opinion about GC/GW/CC mostly to myself for today. I'd group myself with Dyson... humans are good at recording things but horrible at predicting the future... even if it is with a fancy computer simulation.

On the topic of fatty diets one would think that 36 years of observable evidence to the opposite would change some minds. I.e. if high fat diets were the root cause of obesity we'd all be skinny as rakes as there are literally low fat alternatives to everything. Instead we are surrounded by some of the largest land whales know in human history.

A few years ago I was a bit too puddgy for my own liking. I did a smidge of my own research and found how a regular body works versus diabetes - i.e. you take in high sugar and the body instantly metabolises it into fat to even out the blood sugar level. So you can still get fat despite caloric intact. I settled upon a derivative of the Paleo diet where you don't care about fat, but cut out refined sugars and carbohydrates. Combined with a moderate 3 hour/week exercise regiment I dropped 40lbs in 10 weeks (that was a bit too much, but I wanted to see how far I could go).

I was able to keep it off for a long while until once again, I fell victim to the sweet siren song of sugar once more. Time to crack the whip once more.

Politicians are not our friends. Who knew?

Anonymous Eduardo April 08, 2016 12:01 PM  

Denek is obviously listening to Devo right about now...

Anonymous Jack Amok April 08, 2016 12:03 PM  

As to our resident global warmingmonger Mr. Rational, he shows the conventional selective filter of the sciensophist, as well as the convenient myopic view that human behavior (or at least the behavior of cis-gendered white men) is to blame for everything, even things that we have no particular reason to believe are even bad, let alone our fault.

There's the fabricated data (Yamal, everyone!). There's the dodgy "adjustments" to temperature records. There's the flip-flop from warming to cooling to just plain "change." There are the predictive models that have never been accurate. Yet all this... shoddy work and blatant failures to apply anything close to the scientific method... is handwaved away as "settled science."

Then, if you look at ice core data, you'll notice that interglacial periods (such as we're in now) tend to show a great deal of temperature fluctuation as they come to an end, and this has been going on long before humans began burning fossil fuels, or even living in very large numbers. Yet somehow it's our fault if something similar is happening now.

And then there's the ultimate dodged question - suppose Global Warming is happening, why should we be freaked out about it? It would actually be a damned good thing. A hell of a lot better than the (far more likely) alternative of sliding into another glaciation (ice age, for the midwits). Ice sheets covering half the land area and horrible droughts hitting the other half, there would be massive extinctions, of people, animals and plants. The glaciers advancing again will be a far worse ecological catastrophe than anything the idiot warmingmongers are jabbering about now.

Fools, fakers and con-artists.

Blogger anne April 08, 2016 12:14 PM  

On the topic of fatty diets one would think that 36 years of observable evidence to the opposite would change some minds.

See, but that's not the right kind of evidence. Unless it's peer-reviewed-grant-funded-academic-journal-published evidence (even if the sample size ridiculously small), it doesn't count.

There's a HUGE difference between the "evidence-based nutrition" camp like the Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics, and people who pay attention to reality, like Gary Taubes.

Blogger dc.sunsets April 08, 2016 12:25 PM  

The world offered too much complexity to grasp long before Alvin Toffler coined the term, "Future Shock."

We thus live in a human society where people pick and choose only those data that support their preexisting positions. No wonder no amount of debate ever seems to "win."

Undoubtedly there are those whose mental map hews closer to ultimate reality than that of others. When a 50-something "transgender" man believes he's 6 year old girl, his map is off the edge of the world, as are the maps of those who demand he and others like them be fully accommodated in their beliefs.

Science today is nothing but a totem for most people. I have but a vague notion of all the principles involved in television or mobile phones. To most people, these operate for all practical purposes on magic, although they'd argue against use of that word.

This is a big part of the source of today's problems. We have a cult that believes it is entrusted to eliminate sin (badthink) by any means necessary, and its members rationalize any threat, any fine or imprisonment or occupational shunning if they can cite any source, no matter how sketchy, to support their demands.

"Scientists" get paid to provide this. It is the single most effective means of rising professional prominence.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 08, 2016 12:28 PM  

Drug creation is engineering... surgery is craft... neither is science. meta-studies aren't science either.

Fair enough.


Yep, aside from surgery (to fix purely mechanical things, which is as you said "craft"), the best medicine is educated guesswork. Even drug creation. Creating the drugs may be engineering, but understanding what they will do is still a lot of guesswork. Viagra after all was developed to treat high blood pressure and angina. Turned out to be pretty worthless for either purpose, but luckily for Pfizer they discovered it had other benefits. Like helping recover from jet lag (among other things...)

The "educated" part worries me these days though. I think the education we're giving doctors is becoming more politicized and centralized. The AMA, Medicare billing procedures, "standards of care" and the lotto malpractice legal system are all driving for a bureaucratic catastrophe of bad medicine.

For instance, the carb/fat debate - I was listening to Dr. Dominic D'Agostino. He said a ketogenic diet (high in healthy fats like butter, animal fat, olive oil and coconut oil, low in carbs) led to dramatic cognitive improvement in Alzheimer's patients, but nobody could convince the care facilities they were in to feed them that kind of diet because they were sure they'd be sued for giving the patients heart disease if they fed them anything but the "approved" low-fat, high-carb diet that was almost certainly responsible for their dementia in the first place.

Anonymous Eduardo April 08, 2016 12:34 PM  

Wow! Wait is that thing about alzheimer for real!?!

Anonymous Quartermaster April 08, 2016 12:36 PM  

@47
Engineering and science are two sides of the same coin. No science, no Engineering.

Just out of curiosity, are you an Engineer?

Blogger Teri April 08, 2016 12:45 PM  

The worst thing is, they are still spouting this chain of lies.

I have health insurance through work. I get a break in the price if I go through their health analysis. So I did that. Then I got their recommendations for me. Low salt, low fat, especially low fat dairy. I sent them feedback that their dietary guidelines are out of date.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 08, 2016 12:45 PM  

Wow! Wait is that thing about alzheimer for real!?!

Yes. Alzheimer's is starting to be called "Type 3 Diabetes" or "Diabetes of the brain." Insulin resistance affects the brain too, and your brain - which despite weighing only 3% of your body mass burns more like 20% of your calories - needs a lot of fuel.

Once enough years of eating a high carb diet has given someone insulin resistance, switching to a ketogenic diet is a good way to get fuel to cells that need it.

Anonymous Henry April 08, 2016 12:48 PM  

Last month cryptic Sam Kriss wrote about this exact topic, starting with low-hanging fruit -how awful Neil DeGrasse Tyson is- passing through science vs scientism and arriving at

"A decent name for this tendency, for stars and spaceships recast as the instruments of a joyless and pedantic class spite, would be "I Fucking Love Science" ... [which] actually means "I Fucking Love Existing Conditions."

Blogger BrianE April 08, 2016 12:53 PM  

Isn't it just as likely that the obesity epidemic is due to the reliance on fast food meals, given the current American lifestyle?

Anonymous Eduardo April 08, 2016 12:54 PM  

... Oh shhhhh-T. I pratically live out of carbs! O___o'

Ketogenic huh... Must try to take look at that. After I discover how to give Vox hair again without an implant!!!

But on a serious note, I actually dont quite know what diabetes is, always thought it was inability to break sugar molecules, but nobody ever alluded to any brain problems, heard about bone tissue dying and rotting and people using maggots to eat the bad tiss.... Okay well i gonna barf...

OpenID denektenorsk April 08, 2016 1:07 PM  

Denek is obviously listening to Devo right about now...

Ha. Not so much.

Blogger James Dixon April 08, 2016 1:27 PM  

> Engineering and science are two sides of the same coin. No science, no Engineering.

The folks who built the pyramids but didn't know the scientific method would be surprised to hear this.

Blogger Escoffier April 08, 2016 1:40 PM  

For instance, the carb/fat debate - I was listening to Dr. Dominic D'Agostino. He said a ketogenic diet (high in healthy fats like butter, animal fat, olive oil and coconut oil, low in carbs) led to dramatic cognitive improvement in Alzheimer's patients, but nobody could convince the care facilities they were in to feed them that kind of diet because they were sure they'd be sued for giving the patients heart disease if they fed them anything but the "approved" low-fat, high-carb diet that was almost certainly responsible for their dementia in the first place.

Its also more expensive and whatever else they may say I assure, as someone cooking in a hospital, cost is a big driver. Never forget carbs are cheap.

Blogger CM April 08, 2016 1:52 PM  

Yes. Alzheimer's is starting to be called "Type 3 Diabetes" or "Diabetes of the brain."

The lack of cholesterol in lfhc diets is also a factor.

Cholesterol is necessary for repair of neural networks and helps maintain a healthy endocrine system.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents April 08, 2016 1:53 PM  

denektenorsk

On the topic of fatty diets one would think that 36 years of observable evidence to the opposite would change some minds. I.e. if high fat diets were the root cause of obesity we'd all be skinny as rakes as there are literally low fat alternatives to everything. Instead we are surrounded by some of the largest land whales know in human history.

Yeah, well, evidence based medicine is too busy to notice things like "reality".

A few years ago I was a bit too puddgy for my own liking. I did a smidge of my own research and found how a regular body works versus diabetes - i.e. you take in high sugar and the body instantly metabolises it into fat to even out the blood sugar level.

It is not difficult to suss out these metabolic facts. It is incredibly difficult to get them across to people who "know" that the 1980's USDA food pyramid is "truth". Emotional attachment to a graphic from 30 years ago? Go figure.

I know a man who lost 50 pounds in a year. That's 1 pound every week, on average, for those who count on their fingers. He didn't do any serious exercise, maybe a walk once every other day. But he did cut out sugar as completely as possible, and given that he was from 'Bama that was one heck of a sacrifice. No soft drinks, no Moon Pies (or any other pie), no sweet tea, and so forth and so on and on.

He was barely recognizable when I saw him, looked like a different man and sounded different as well - losing 50 pounds was indeed good for him. He dropped sugar and dropped weight. He didn't change his simple carbs, he didn't change his fats, just quit the sugar.

Q.E.D.

Sure, he could have done better. But he's my go-to for the fraud of "fat causes fat".

When I looked into the background of the 1980's food pyramid, and found it was based on shoddy work that wasn't even up to the standard of a Jr. High Science Fair, it was enlightening. I haven't had any real arguments with my doc, but I have made it clear he better not ever even bring up statins, if he wants to remain healthy.

Statins - another fine mess.

Blogger CM April 08, 2016 1:59 PM  

Then I got their recommendations for me. Low salt, low fat, especially low fat dairy.

I did medifast for a while which is a vlc, lchp diet. I lost about 20lb, got pregnant and tried to go back after i had a baby. They wouldn't do medifast w a breastfeeding mom, so gave me a diet plan... lfhc. Really? At least stay in keeps ping w your medifast plan.

Anonymous Takin' a Look April 08, 2016 2:01 PM  

@ Vox

This is one of the BEST articles you have ever written "claps"

Anonymous Jack Amok April 08, 2016 2:25 PM  

Fats have all sorts of important, complex organic molecules our bodies need for neurological health. I wouldn't be surprised to find out low-fat diets are responsible for increased mental health problems.

OpenID basementhomebrewer April 08, 2016 2:32 PM  

@69 So you are saying the rise in LFHC diets could be responsible for the increase in SJWs? This actually sort of makes sense.

Next time you see a pudgy blue hair, knock the cake out of their mouth and shove some lard down their throat.

Blogger pyrrhus April 08, 2016 2:37 PM  

@63 In the great book "Anti-Fragile", Taleb establishes at great length that the architects and builders of everything from cathedrals to early steam engines used neither science nor math in the process, but rather rules of thumb.

OpenID denektenorsk April 08, 2016 2:50 PM  

@13, yes it's happening. It's been happening since the last little ice age. Go look at the observations of explorers trying to find the Northwest Passage (found it). Especially look at Cook's accounts of the glaciation in Alaska. Those glaciers have been in retreat for a long time. AGW in the age of sail? Please.

I agree that climate change is a thing. Glacial retreat in Canada is a thing. The Mediterrean has risen given the acient ruins that have been found underwater. The climate has definitely changed. From where I'm sitting a warmer winter isn't so bad and I don't much care for some islands half way around the world that have stubbornly refused to sink under the ocean just yet. Sorry, but it's true.

Remember though:
- The Artic is supposed to be ice free by now (Al Gore - 2008)
- The UK had its last snow fall (Guardian - early 2000s)
- Miami will be underwater by 2025 (http://www.nationalwaterrestoration.com/south-florida-predicted-to-be-underwater-in-2025/)
- Wait, Miami will be underwater in 20 years (Michael E. Mann - Rubin Report interview, March 2016)

Some of these may be "what if" alarmist questions but the media on both sides willfully misrepresent that. E.g. "Miami, New Orleans, and Charleston have already passed their lock-in dates, and Miami is expected to be underwater by 2025." (from above link). That is REALLY definitive, no?

Now, some serious questions:

- Is there a concensus of how much of this is man-made versus naturally occuring? I.e. We didn't rise the Mediterrean that much during the Industrial Revolution.
- If any portion of it is naturally occuring what sort of hubris do we have to think we can control it? Do we think we could stop the next ice age for example?
- People often trot out the Venus vs Mars example to "prove" that CO2 is the major input to warming. What about the sunward side of Mercury? It tends to be a tad warm there, no? My point is how much does variance in solar activity affect this?
- How much CO2 is being removed by plants as a natural counter? Plants are CO2 "starved"... even the climate scientists acknowledge that crops in some areas will get a boost out of more CO2 in the atmosphere.
- Why do SOME climate scientists misrepresent the positions of fellow scientists who are somewhat skeptics? E.g. in a recent interview Michael E. Mann conflated Freeman Dysons' theory of Dyson Spheres with a solution to CO2 emissions (Rubin Report interview on You Tube, March 2016). If the evidence is rock solid and stands on its merits, why resort to SJW type tactics against a person who agrees in principal, but says the models are incorrect?

If we take at face value the dire predictions why are we not doing something serious about it?
- Why are we not deploying CO2 emission free nuclear power? Why are we not running electric cars off that power source?
- Why are we doubling down on idiocy like wind mills and currently unviable alternatives like solar. Solar (IMO) will become a viable power source... but when? How much longer do we wait? If you say we need big desert arrays then Goole transmission loss. It stands at ~7% from your local energy provider. Move that a couple thousand km more away... well you get the picture.
- Why do we send hundreds of politicans to Paris generating untold tonnes of CO2 emissions in the age of digital conferencing?
- Why is the solution carbon taxes on first world nations? All that will do is move more manufacturing overseas so China can lie about emissions. Is the solution to just sweep it under the rug?
- Why does no one consider tariffs on cheap imported crap to reduce luxury consumerism? If you don't replace your iPhone every 12 months for a different shade of gold perhaps that might mean less global energy consumption/emissions?

Anonymous Ezekiel Cassandros April 08, 2016 3:02 PM  

basementhomebrewer wrote:@69 So you are saying the rise in LFHC diets could be responsible for the increase in SJWs? This actually sort of makes sense.

Next time you see a pudgy blue hair, knock the cake out of their mouth and shove some lard down their throat.


I don't know how important fat is for proper brain function later in life... but it is essential for brain development. But back during the low-fat craze... Well, my physiology class did tell us a horror story about low-fat hippies who earned a post-partum Darwin Award.

It's like people who try to make their cats eat vegan, only more tragic.

Blogger CM April 08, 2016 3:25 PM  

@73

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-breakthrough-depression-solution/201106/low-cholesterol-and-its-psychological-effects

Its heavily conflated with statin use, but not the only place I have read this.

Blogger tz April 08, 2016 3:25 PM  

Karl Denniger eats WalMart factory eggs and other factory food and seems to be ok, but another part of LCHL is eating real food. Free range chickens have bright orange yolks, not pale yellow. Calves fed pasteurized milk are sickly - heat and homogenization affect the nutrition and taste. Heirloom tomatoes are juicy, the factory farm version are tasteless baseballs.

That is another problem - if you eat less even when it is because you aren't hungry, you need higher nutrient density.

Even wheat - Jovialfoods.com has unhybridized Einkorn. Different gluten many can tolerate, less starch, more nutrients - and it is from farms in Italy.

You can measure the difference. And a lot of the GMO stuff is also nutrient poor.

Blogger tz April 08, 2016 3:27 PM  

Nebraska man, Piltdown man, Miichael Mann

Blogger dc.sunsets April 08, 2016 3:31 PM  

It's like people who try to make their cats eat vegan, only more tragic.

Replace "cat" with "baby." I have no doubt it's a "thing" in some circles.

This is why I was pleased to see avocado is now a part of recommended "baby's first solid foods."

Blogger dc.sunsets April 08, 2016 3:33 PM  

Denninger heaps scorn on people who eat "organic" almost entirely on the basis of there being generally no difference in nutrient content.

Unless I missed it, he conveniently ignores discussing the pesticide content.

Blogger SciVo April 08, 2016 3:46 PM  

Wow. Hard evidence for the group mind. As hypothesized: a man is a system with subsystems, and systems also have supersystems, so a man can be a subsystem of a larger being -- a component of a metaperson.

OpenID denektenorsk April 08, 2016 4:10 PM  

Wow. Hard evidence for the group mind. As hypothesized: a man is a system with subsystems, and systems also have supersystems, so a man can be a subsystem of a larger being -- a component of a metaperson.

Correlation does not imply causation. http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Perhaps we all found this place because we share a similar view? One could say the same of most online forums? I don't agree with everything written in the comments but I have neither the time nor inclination to poo poo everyone who doesn't agree with me 100%. That would be an exclusive club indeed, currently comprised of me, myself and I.

Anonymous BGKB April 08, 2016 4:19 PM  

Vit D is vastly underrated and so many are low on it. D3 is the preferred form. Shiitake mushrooms, which can be grown on inoculated logs, are the best source for a Nigapocalypse situation. Especially important for kids that don't go out much to avoid Type 1 diabetes.

Blogger SciVo April 08, 2016 4:46 PM  

I've always told people to ignore the "experts" and eat more fat, less sugar. Just watch an old video of a civil rights march, then go to a Walmart, then work through the trauma, then eat like you're on a farm. Not rocket surgery.

Blogger exfarmkid April 08, 2016 5:02 PM  

19. "How do the CFC's get to the upper atmosphere? They're heavier than air. Please, enlighten us."

Sure, initially, given a cloud of the stuff.

But gases diffuse and mix. CFC molecular masses are around ... 160 or so. CO2 molecular mass of 40 and mixes well. Let's see (pause to look up noble gas table)...xenon gas has an atomic mass of about 131, and that certainly mixes in the atmosphere. And, last but not least, CFC content has been measured in the stratosphere.

If you want to argue about photochemical mechanisms that may or may not change the assymptotic population level of ozone at specific pressures, UV intensity and temperatures, have at it.

Damn it, you triggered the nerd in me, you bastard!

Blogger exfarmkid April 08, 2016 5:16 PM  

56. "Engineering and science are two sides of the same coin. No science, no Engineering."

Oddly enough, technical developments often precede the "science", sometimes by decades.

Anonymous tublecane April 08, 2016 5:17 PM  

I've read Steve Sailer on a supposed "replication crisis" in the social sciences lately. In other words, people are starting to notice and talk about what should have been obvious for more than a century. He made the point that most of it isn't science, which I knew, but rather market research.

Anonymous tublecane April 08, 2016 5:19 PM  

@9-I've always hated that saying. You don't know that it ain't so, so it's still what you don't know hurting you.

OpenID aew51183 April 08, 2016 5:21 PM  

I'm very sad to see VD lump economics into the category of "pseudoscience".
Properly conducted economic research is possible using the scientific method. It's not the fault of the few good economists that large portions of the field have been borged by political action committees and their shill "think tanks".

Blogger exfarmkid April 08, 2016 5:27 PM  

71. "@63 In the great book "Anti-Fragile", Taleb establishes at great length that the architects and builders of everything from cathedrals to early steam engines used neither science nor math in the process, but rather rules of thumb. "

Taleb may be just a little bit off here. Joseph Black's brilliant lab work (paid for - I think - by some Scottish distillers trying to improve the efficiency of their processes) went into his buddy Watt's improved steam engine.

Just sayin....

Blogger exfarmkid April 08, 2016 5:30 PM  

Vox, what is the etymology of "scientody"?

Good post, BTW.

Blogger SciVo April 08, 2016 5:48 PM  

BGKB wrote:How do the CFC's get to the upper atmosphere? They're heavier than air. Please, enlighten us.

They cut their long hair, get rid of the high heels, and self identify as HElium.


I admit it, I LOL'd.

Blogger SciVo April 08, 2016 5:55 PM  

denektenorsk wrote:I did a smidge of my own research and found how a regular body works versus diabetes - i.e. you take in high sugar and the body instantly metabolises it into fat to even out the blood sugar level. So you can still get fat despite caloric intact.

Now see, I didn't even know the mechanism (which makes sense), but I didn't need to. The result of the public experiment spoke for itself.

Do what works, not what doesn't.

Anonymous Millenium April 08, 2016 7:03 PM  

@70 Fat and cholesterol are necessary to produce testosterone and processed foods increase estrogen so you might be onto something


@75 Don't forget to avoid grain fed cows. The ratio of ldl to hdl is 16:1 in their fat as opposed to 3:1 in grass fed cows. Grain fed beef is bad for your heart.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar April 08, 2016 7:21 PM  

Science is merely a tool. Like most tools it depends on who uses it. In the hands of an experienced Japanese Master Chef at a Japanese Steak House a knife is practically a culinary martial art where a Samarai Steak House blademaster Ginsu cuts fine Kobe Beef and launches it majestically in a spectacularly accurate arc into your mouth as you marvel at his smooth and graceful motions. However, in the untrained hands of a refugee from the Stone Age who sees disagreement towards any CIA conspiracy theory as an wanton act of war. Which usually leads to the kind of bloody scene that one would expect a clumsy copycat of Jack the Ripper to make.
The futility of sending socially maladroit and gullible teenagers to Marxist Reeducation Camps disguised as Universities becomes clear, when I simply tell these misguided fools that even if the Earth was warming I do not believe the government can change the weather or ambient temperature leads to howls of protest and claims I work for Oil and Gas Companies. However, the scientists who get all their funding from corporations and governments who stand to profit from Climate Change Hysteria are apparently altruistic superheroes working for Social Justice and Peace. Education has passed farce and become a caricature of itself. Thankfully the Ancient Greeks did not live to see how their idea of academies has become a bloody farce.

Blogger justaguy April 08, 2016 8:28 PM  

Poppers basic works used to be known by all modern scientist. Now to be a Phd student in most sciences, one has to disavow him. Progress by the progressives.

OpenID thehappycanadianblog April 08, 2016 8:44 PM  

I have been working and publishing as a scientist for a number of years. Halfway through my graduate studies, way back when, I realized that Science was more correctly to be thought of as "Scienetics" a la L. Ron Hubbard.

Blogger VFM #7634 April 08, 2016 9:10 PM  

I know you think that's a takedown, but there are these phenomena called "diffusion" which mixes things quickly over short distances and slowly over longer distances, and "convection" and "advection" which mix things quickly over long distances. Refer also to the distribution of xenon which would stratify even more strongly than CFCs if "talk radio science" had the slightest bit of validity.

@39 Mr. Rational
There are significant amounts of xenon in the upper atmosphere? By that logic, helium and neon would not have escaped into space, since diffusion and advection would work downwards as well.

Cite or retract.

Anonymous The other robot April 08, 2016 9:32 PM  

@83: According to the OzoneWatch web site we have some 36 years of data.

It seems too early to conclude that CFCs were causing the increase, since it has not really abated much, if at all with the banning of CFCs.

It could be that all we are seeing is a naturally periodic signal.

It is interesting that Mr Rational has not come back to address these issues.

Blogger tz April 08, 2016 9:48 PM  

So tiny trace amounts of CFCs which aren't all going to dissociate enter the stratosphere - the "ozone hole" is 1%. I have less UV because I'm 3 degrees north now of where I used to live than the hole, much less any effect.

Apparently volcanic HCl doesn't dissociate nor affect the Ozone even though it is there in large quantities.

I missed one:

ScienToady: dogmatic advocate whose priestly robes resemble a lab-coat.

Thomas Dolby's music vid "She blinded me with science" comes to mind.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 08, 2016 10:12 PM  

dc.sunsets wrote:Unless I missed it, he conveniently ignores discussing the pesticide content.
There are three camps in the Organic food movement.
There's the Biodhnamic (what organic is called in Europe) types, who believe in a mystical life force which is depleted and destroyed by synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.
There's the pure food types that worry about pesticide residues in food and the environment.
Finally there are the Organic Economy types, who are concerned about the monolithic corporatization of agriculture, monoculture, and the fragility of our food system.
Karl sees the biodynamic argument is bullshit
You ask (rightly, I think) why he's not concerned about residues.
I'm here to tell you that since the FDA and Dept of AT standardized Organic standards and made it accessible to giant AG corps and handed the entire system over to Monsanto. Organic used to be a marker for small family farms thag cared about their produce and their customers. Not any more.
If you're buying Organic at Safeway or Whole Paycheck or Walmart, you're not really helping.

Anonymous Ken April 08, 2016 11:03 PM  

Banning CFCs hurt me personally. You see, CFCs in a propellant diffuse the carried along product in a most efficient way. That's why it was once used in hairsprays and why it was, until January 1st 2012, used in inhalers.

Four years later, there has been NO over-the-counter inhalers available. Nor is there anything that approaches the efficacy of that old miracle drug, Primatene Mist. NOT been replaced. Thanks, lefties and environmentalists! This shit is personal.

I almost can't wait for the collapse. Score settling is going to be personal.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 08, 2016 11:08 PM  

But on a serious note, I actually dont quite know what diabetes is...

There are two types. Type 1 - childhood diabetes - is a birth defect where you're born with an impaired ability to produce insulin. Insulin is a hormone that allows glucose - blood sugar - to transmit cell walls and enter your cells where the mitochondria can burn it for fuel. If you're born with compromised insulin production, you have to inject insulin to regulate your blood sugar. It's relatively rare, and has nothing to do with diet.

Type II diabetes - a.k.a. adult onset diabetes - is where your body produces plenty of insulin, but for some reason, your cells become resistant to allowing insulin to carry the glucose into the cells. I don't think anyone has figured out the mechanism yet, but basically, decades of high insulin levels in your blood (from eating a high-carb diet) produces resistance in your cell walls. Insulin has a harder and harder time getting the glucose through the cell walls. That means your blood glucose levels start to rise, and excessive blood glucose levels cause your blood to turn acidic, and start to damage cells (peripheral neuropathy, blindness, etc). The recent notion of "diabetes of the brain" is a realization that insulin resistance also makes it difficult for your brain cells to get the fuel they need to function - or even continue to live.

Your body has a second fuel system - the ketogenic one. It burns ketones, the result of your liver metabolizing fat, instead of glucose. Ketones are harder for your body to produce - your liver needs to make them, and it's a busy organ - but they don't require any hormones like insulin to transmit the blood-cell barrier. Ketones can flow through cell walls on their own, and be burned by the cell nucleus for fuel.

For more info, bing/google Dominic D'Agostino or Jimmy Moore or Dr. Axe.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 08, 2016 11:16 PM  

There's the Biodhnamic (what organic is called in Europe) types, who believe in a mystical life force which is depleted and destroyed by synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.

I'm not quite sure where this fits, but a local farm - who's owners we know - recently did an extensive "remineralization" of their farm.

I don't know if the produce is healthier afterwards, but I can say it is tastier. The celery has a much more pronounced taste. So does the spinach, the carrots, the rashishes...

the basic idea is that long-term intensive farming depletes micronutrients, which are absorbed by the crops and then carried away by the people eating them. over time, the soil becomes depleted of these micro-nutrients.

I don't know if it's true or not, but I definitely taseted a difference in the produce after Farmer Eric had the remineralization done. The crops tasted better, more intense.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar April 08, 2016 11:24 PM  

These environmentalists and their fake caring for "the Planet" which they call Gaia are actually a neo-luddite cult who fetishizes "natural living". These are the same Looney Tunes who in the 1960s claimed that America and Africa used to be paradises where man and nature coexisted in perfect harmony with no waste and pollution at all. These people are completely insane. They are the epitome of the dangers of secularism and atheism. They have replaced the Garden of Eden paradise story with a ludicrous fantasy where they erroneously believe American Indians and in fact all Non-White native cultures were a paradise of peace and harmony where man and beast were friends and the land and air were so clean you could eat the dirt and smell nothing but clean wholesome mountain air. These delusions alone are a good reason to ban humanism and secularism and send the new age gurus to padded cells with daily maximum doses of thorazine. These morons actually believe life was better when people were naked savages worshipping the sun and moon and engaging in human sacrifices to stop disease and starvation. Anyone dumb enough to listen to them had better realize this is simply a new age neo-luddite cult which hates technology and fetishizes animals, spirits and running around naked. These people are about as scientific as any other cult like Scientology, the Maharishi Sex Cult or the magically insane witches who dance around bonfires on All Hallows Eve.
Their constant targeting of man made products like aerosols, air conditioning coolants, automobiles and reliable sources of energy from benzene based petroleum to coal to natural gas and even nuclear energy is no mistake. They hate technology. The only natural source of pollution they mention at all is cow farts, and that has all to do with their vegetarian death cult that insists vital amino acids that are only found in meat can be found in beans, but those farts of course are harmless because they are veggie farts. Their insistence that Solar Cycles, Volcanic Eruptions and weather patterns like El Nino are insignificant shows how they only blame shit we make and use for their delusions of naked natural living.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 08, 2016 11:45 PM  


Its also more expensive and whatever else they may say I assure, as someone cooking in a hospital, cost is a big driver. Never forget carbs are cheap.


thereby allowing for a large markup to retail...

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 09, 2016 12:04 AM  

Jack Amok wrote:I'm not quite sure where this fits, but a local farm - who's owners we know - recently did an extensive "remineralization" of their farm.
Remineralization consists of applying rock dust to the soil to replace elements in short supply. Usually, they are not lost so much to plant uptake as to waterflow, particularly in acid soil. And yes, it does markedly improve both the health and flavor of row crops. It also vastly improves the microbiology of the soil, which is critical in maintaining fertility and soil texture, and retaining soil.
It's also fairly expensive to do properly, so most corporate farms, if they do anything at all, just throw some lime at the field and call it good.

Blogger CJ April 09, 2016 1:44 AM  

I agree with dc.sunsets's list of "scientific" fiascoes, and I'd like to add one more: the 1990s panic about exposure to the sun causing sun cancer. That one contained a grain of truth, which its proponents amped up to the ridiculous. Dermatologists viciously attacked anyone suggesting that sunshine had health benefits, and companies producing sunscreens cashed in big-time. This is actually a good example of science gone wrong, because few people are emotionally invested in it.

When you add financial interest to ideology, then the self-righteousness really ignites. Of course that principle goes way beyond scientific matters.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY April 09, 2016 1:59 AM  



"I almost can't wait for the collapse. Score settling is going to be personal."
Damn straight, Ken.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY April 09, 2016 4:12 AM  

Oddly enough, technical developments often precede the "science", sometimes by decades.


You know you are fuckin' the geniuses up, don't you ?
They don't like that, not at all.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY April 09, 2016 4:24 AM  

Their constant targeting of man made products like aerosols, air conditioning coolants, automobiles and reliable sources of energy from benzene based petroleum to coal to natural gas and even nuclear energy is no mistake. They hate technology. The only natural source of pollution they mention at all is cow farts, and that has all to do with their vegetarian death cult that insists vital amino acids that are only found in meat can be found in beans, but those farts of course are harmless because they are veggie farts. Their insistence that Solar Cycles, Volcanic Eruptions and weather patterns like El Nino are insignificant shows how they only blame shit we make and use for their delusions of naked natural living.
Preach it ,brother.

Blogger Ahazuerus April 09, 2016 11:28 AM  

@106 CJ:

Not to mention the recent discovery that most sunscreens contain a toxin that kills coral reefs in as low a concentration as several parts per billion.

Doh!

Blogger ghostfromplanetspook April 09, 2016 7:55 PM  

If you could somehow prove that your quality of life was violated by the diet model then id say go for it

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 09, 2016 11:48 PM  

The other robot wrote:The graph of the average ozone hole size at the Ozone Watch site (LHS, down a bit) confuses me then, or your claims confuse me.
The size and depth of the ozone hole depends on the upper-atmosphere polar weather, which determines how many ice particles form for ClO to bind to as a catalyst and how long those particles last when the sun returns in spring.  Gaseous ClO is a relatively poor ozone catalyst.

If you look at the graph again, you'll see that the decline is steady but not exactly fast.  It appears to be going down at perhaps 2 ppt/yr.  Note that the graph is only for CFC-11, and some of the replacements for R-11 and R-12 also contribute to stratospheric chlorine but break down faster.

If the ban on CFCs was to fix the ozone hole issue, it seems not to have done so.
You should be seeing a substantial improvement in your lifetime, but at 2 ppt/yr decline from a 280 ppt peak, it's going to take a while.  The problem wasn't created overnight either.

Jack Amok wrote:As to our resident global warmingmonger Mr. Rational, he shows the conventional selective filter of the sciensophist
Says someone who hasn't risen to my REPEATED CHALLENGES to show me how e.g. increasing the optical depth of the atmosphere in major thermal IR bands can possibly have NO effect on temperatures (further claiming that the measurements which show those predicted effects are faked).

as well as the convenient myopic view that human behavior (or at least the behavior of cis-gendered white men) is to blame for everything
Straight cis-gendered White men invented mechanical refrigeration.  Straight cis-gendered White men invented Freons™ as superior refrigerants to ammonia.  It was a straight cis-gendered White man who noted that Freons™ had no apparent sink and set out to find what happened to them and what consequences there were.  It was straight cis-gendered White men who independently discovered and confirmed those consequences.  For the most part, it's straight cis-gendered White men who are cleaning up afterward.

Speaking as a straight cis-gendered White man, straight cis-gendered White men do most of the heavy lifting in Western civ and especially science and technology.  Now, will you help get the loony left out of the way so that we can fix the climate problem too?  It won't be nearly as much work as they claim it will be (all their "solutions" are bogus), but you have to agree there's a problem before you can be taken seriously.  Thank you very much.

even things that we have no particular reason to believe are even bad, let alone our fault.
I'm currently experiencing the direct consequences of the wandering polar vortex, which is weakened by the reduced polar heat loss due to added GHGs.  It's April and the first forecast overnight low above freezing is a week away.

Then, if you look at ice core data, you'll notice that interglacial periods (such as we're in now) tend to show a great deal of temperature fluctuation as they come to an end
If you look at the ice core data, you'll notice that the ends of interglacials are associated with CO2 levels on the order of 250 ppm, not 400+ ppm. (continued)

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 10, 2016 12:01 AM  

(cot'd from previous, pt. 2 of 3)

suppose Global Warming is happening, why should we be freaked out about it? It would actually be a damned good thing.
Changing the world substantially from the conditions in which all our crops, domestic animals and we ourselves evolved is foolhardy.  Mankind is adaptable enough to live almost everywhere except Antarctica with only stone-age technology, but that doesn't mean civilization can endure major upsets; ask the Olmecs, Sumerians, etc.

denektenorsk wrote:Is there a concensus of how much of this is man-made versus naturally occuring? I.e. We didn't rise the Mediterrean that much during the Industrial Revolution.
The IR was limited to a small part of the globe, and world population was much lower then. 
If any portion of it is naturally occuring what sort of hubris do we have to think we can control it? Do we think we could stop the next ice age for example?
Given that the onset of glacial periods is associated with CO2 levels closer to 225 ppm, I have no doubt that we can prevent glaciation indefinitely by emitting CO2.  We can also go way too far... and I believe we already have.

My point is how much does variance in solar activity affect this?
Solar activity has been roughly flat to slightly declining during the period for which satellite measurements are available.

How much CO2 is being removed by plants as a natural counter? Plants are CO2 "starved"... even the climate scientists acknowledge that crops in some areas will get a boost out of more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Plants are not necessarily CO2 "starved".  Plant growth relies on a number of nutrients, which are subject to Liebig's law of the minimum.  If growth is limited by phosphate or potash, adding CO2 will not help.

Why do SOME climate scientists misrepresent the positions of fellow scientists who are somewhat skeptics
Outside scientific journals, it's rhetorical battle.  As Vox states, rhetoric must be fought with rhetoric.

If we take at face value the dire predictions why are we not doing something serious about it?
The TL;DR version is "politics, lobbying and the elite's ability to author and promote narratives favoring their own interests".  One of their favorite ways is to create false dichotomies, which I'll get to below. (which turns out to be part 3)

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 10, 2016 12:04 AM  

(part 3 of 3)

Why are we not deploying CO2 emission free nuclear power? Why are we not running electric cars off that power source?
Excellent question!  The natural gas industry has been VERY successful at using "renewables" as a weapon against nuclear power.  Natural gas is (currently and temporarily) very cheap.  NG plants are cheap and quick to build, requiring very little money to be borrowed so having low amortization costs.  They also don't have the massive "national security" costs slapped onto nuclear plants after 9/11.  So when you have a triple-whammy of extra costs, cheap natural gas and subsidized wind and solar (which get "must take" priority on the grid), nuclear is slapped around like a red-headed stepchild.

There's money to be made in natural gas.  Even at low delivered prices of perhaps $4 per million BTU, drillers and pipeline operators get between 2 and 4 cents per kWh of electricity produced from NG.  Uranium is really, really cheap; the raw uranium costs maybe a tenth of a cent per kWh, with all the processing and fabrication adding to a total of less than a penny.  Practically all the money in nuclear goes to bondholders, corporations and workers.  Producers and pipeline companies want those markets for themselves.

There's literally tons of uranium just lying there.  The radon in the gas from the Marcellus shale comes from uranium, proving that Pennsylvania is sitting on far more atomic energy than there ever was in oil and gas.  But try getting permission to get it out of the ground!

Why are we doubling down on idiocy like wind mills and currently unviable alternatives like solar.
Because they're useful stalking horses against the nuclear industry, and "renewable portfolio standards" leave no room for base load generators even if they are carbon-free.  This is one false dichotomy I mentioned.

Why is the solution carbon taxes on first world nations? All that will do is move more manufacturing overseas so China can lie about emissions. Is the solution to just sweep it under the rug?
That's because the people behind these things are globalists, and make their money by looting first-world economies.  This is just more of the same.

VFM #7634 wrote:@39 Mr. Rational

There are significant amounts of xenon in the upper atmosphere? By that logic, helium and neon would not have escaped into space, since diffusion and advection would work downwards as well.

Cite or retract.

Schlatter, "Atmospheric Composition and Vertical Structure".  You're wrong about mixing preventing loss, because the ability to mix downward does not prevent a light atom from being thermally or photonically driven to escape velocity and not returning to earth.  Neutral atoms will not be impeded by e.g. earth's magnetic field.

@97  This blog is a diversion for me, not my job.

@98  Volcanic HCl comes with a vastly larger mass of volcanic steam (which forms droplets and rains out), and dissociates as hydrogen and chloride ions rather than neutral atoms.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 10, 2016 1:11 AM  

Says someone who hasn't risen to my REPEATED CHALLENGES

Stuff your repeated challenges up your ignorant ass, dipshit.

You think we have data that says anything about current climate changes? We don't. The AGW enthusiasts you like so damn much have chowdered the data - whether through malfeasance or pure incompetence, they've screwed the pooch and we have nothing reliable.

We don't know what the temperature is doing, because the people we paid to curate the data fucked up.

And I'm sorry you're too fucking panicky to deal with weather, and the polar votex (oooohhhh! sounds bad!) is inconveniencing you, but if you think global warming is worse than another glaciation, you are as dumb as you act on here.

Warming = more of the planet can support crops, animals, and life. Wetter weather, more pleasant most places.

Cooling - ice sheets covering large tracts of land and locking up moisture so that the rest of the planet is drier and more prone to drought.

Jesus you are dumb. And annoying. Tell you what, you go live in Greenland for a year. I'll live in Hawaii. We'll compare notes and see who liked it better.

Blogger exfarmkid April 10, 2016 9:55 AM  

Jack Amok....deep breaths, man. Take deep breaths.

So he's a little snarky - don't shoot a guy who's on your side.

As Jerry Pournelle has stated many times, we are running an open-ended experiment on our planetary hydrosphere which may or may not be wise. I share his "in two minds" thoughts.

I share your doubts on weather database quality. I spent much time using the US National Weather Database to project regional field service life. It's a great database for that sort of work. Trying to eek out itsy-bitsy trends in climate shifts, not so good.

I also did not get the idea that Mr. Rational fears "global warming", simply that he believes the data indicates such is happening.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar April 10, 2016 10:25 AM  

Global Warming and Climate Change is not on your side. Trust me its a neo-luddite cult. The fact they go after manmade devices exclusively and have that "cisgendered" White Male hate thing going on is a huge red flag its not science. Cisgendered is fruit loop talk for heterosexual by the way. These guys are so gay, they believe heterosexual behavior is wrong and discriminatory. They are magically insane.
It doesn't matter if the temperature goes up or down, if it rains or snaows, or even if more trees grow. Its all about getting rid of Civilization and technology and going back to the old ways of hunger, disease, robber barons and serfdom AKA slavery.

Blogger exfarmkid April 10, 2016 10:54 AM  

Joshua, you are mixing up "scientody" with "scientistry".

So-called "Climate Science" is hopelessly politicized and I urge you to stop playing into this.

I saw no signs in his comments that Mr. Rational wishes to destroy western civilization - quite the opposite.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar April 10, 2016 11:25 AM  

Oh you just don't understand how this game is played. Guys like "rational" may not know the endgame, but footsoldiers almost never understand the strategy. The low level hunger dogs are just there to howl and attack. They have been giving their marching orders. Only the Generals at HQ with Granny Goodness, DeSaad and Darkseid actually know the endgame of finding the Anti-Life Equation to enslave the World. In all the wars ever fought, the soldiers just go where they are told to go and fight who they are told to fight. Its only the Generals at HQ playing with their little toys and their pretty maps who actually understand the goals of this strategy. Scientody and Scientism is a meaningless distinction to Rainbow Brite and the Hate Bears.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 10, 2016 12:17 PM  

exfarmkid, this poorly named Mr. Rational has been pedaling his AGW schtick for years. It is a highly mockable position to take in a comment section for a post about the poor state of science in the country.

If AGW isn't the posterchild for bad science, it's only because nutrition science has been even more shoddy and caused significantly more damage to people. But AGW has all the hallmarks - dogma, suppression of dissent, fabricated data, reliance on government funding, scare tactics (including bait-and-switch scares), computer models that never predict the future, findings that oddly always point to the need for more research funding, no accountability for people who are consistently wrong, or even for people who have been shown to have falsified the research they took government money for...

It's scam science. And it has the potential, as Vox's post demonstrates with the previous scam science on nutrition, to cause a great deal of suffering, misery, and death.

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 10, 2016 1:22 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:Says someone who hasn't risen to my REPEATED CHALLENGES

Stuff your repeated challenges up your ignorant ass, dipshit.

Proof by sodomo-scatalogical insult?  Someone is #TRIGGERED, probably by his insecurity.  You are right to be insecure, because you're flat wrong.

You think we have data that says anything about current climate changes? We don't.
Records of dates of e.g. rivers freezing in winter and thawing in spring going back hundreds of years are not data about current climate changes?  What planet are you from again?

You think we don't have data about the energy coming into Earth as well as data about what happens to it (more accessible page here)?  All you have to do is look.  Oh, wait, you call that "conspiracy", as if China, Russia and India (all space-faring nations which launch their own instrumented satellites) would allow their interests to be trampled by allowing such a fraud to go un-debunked.

The AGW enthusiasts you like so damn much have chowdered the data - whether through malfeasance or pure incompetence, they've screwed the pooch and we have nothing reliable.

We don't know what the temperature is doing, because the people we paid to curate the data fucked up.

The Koch brothers contributed to a de-novo analysis of temperature records to address that exact objection of yours, and you still won't believe it.  No matter how many times they do it over, they're not going to get a different result.

There comes a point where it's obvious that someone cannot be convinced by data, they can only be pounded with rhetoric until they shut up.  Leftards and their "paint-job theory" of race-denial are one class of these.  You're in another.

And I'm sorry you're too fucking panicky to deal with weather, and the polar votex (oooohhhh! sounds bad!) is inconveniencing you, but if you think global warming is worse than another glaciation, you are as dumb as you act on here.
Yesterday was a bright, sunny day.  It's weeks past the vernal equinox and the usual temperature for such conditions is in the 50's.  It never broke freezing because arctic air is blowing more than halfway to the equator instead of staying in the arctic where it belongs.

My neighbors are fruit growers.  A few years ago this region lost damn near the entire crop because of an early thaw followed by a freeze.  If this happens often enough, they go out of business.  They can deal with warmer or cooler years just fine, but they need the weather to be predictable.

Warming = more of the planet can support crops, animals, and life. Wetter weather, more pleasant most places.
The Sahara desert was a forest during the last glaciation.  Southern California and points east are having a drought of Biblical proportions which will only get worse.  As things get warmer, evaporation increases.  This means many places dry out.

Cooling - ice sheets covering large tracts of land and locking up moisture so that the rest of the planet is drier and more prone to drought.
You're really a boob if you have to use strawman arguments.  Nobody ever said we want cooling.  We want to keep things more or less as they were. (continued)

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 10, 2016 1:24 PM  

Tell you what, you go live in Greenland for a year. I'll live in Hawaii. We'll compare notes and see who liked it better.
Same strawman again.  Nobody wants to make the world into Greenland.

Jesus you are dumb. And annoying.
You're dishonest.  And annoying.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 10, 2016 2:03 PM  

You're dishonest.

You're the one supporting a scam but I'm the one that's dishonest?

Huh. I guess that explains things well enough.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar April 10, 2016 2:14 PM  

Did you notice the seamless change from warming to freezing there? Its too cold now, so its Anthropogenic Global Warming. Warm or cold, sun or snow, its all the same because its not the temperature its the technology and their scapegoat the heterosexual White Christian Male. We are not Kulaks rat. You want a War, but you will lose. This shit is just getting old. Wacism, slabery and now even the weather is something they want to blame us for huh? I have to hand it to the enemy, they ain't subtle.

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 10, 2016 4:50 PM  

Joshua Sinistar wrote:Oh you just don't understand how this game is played. Guys like "rational" may not know the endgame, but footsoldiers almost never understand the strategy. The low level hunger dogs are just there to howl and attack.
You really think I'm some Green ideologue?  MPAI, but are you that blind?

One of the hats I wear is "analyst".  Among the facts that have to be put into any analysis of the political standoff which entrenches the status quo is the history of big environmental organizations.

Fact:  The original motto of the Sierra Club was "Atoms not dams".  Surprised?  Sierra Club was also for ZPG and against immigration.  Not any more.  How did such sensible positions get totally reversed?

The simple answer is money.  They were bought.

Consider what would have happened if the Sierra Club and the rest of the environmental movement had remained pro-nuclear.  The NRC would have used a much lighter hand, if it ever replaced the AEC.  Costs of nuclear plants would have been much lower and schedules faster.  We would have very few base-load coal plants, because uranium costs a fraction of what coal does and building a nuke would have looked good compared to retrofitting scrubbers.  The USA was first to build nuclear reactors and remains the biggest nuclear nation on earth (though China is rapidly catching up).  The most likely outcome would have been for the US to wind up much like France, with 70-80% of all electricity coming from nuclear power.  Sulfur haze and acid rain would have disappeared.

This would have ruined the coal industry.  Steam coal would have been almost worthless.  The mines of West Virginia, eastern Kentucky and the growing low-sulfur coal miners in the west would have been out of business.  Much of the business of the rail and barge operators would have vanished too.

A few millions a year to buy some environmental groups looks pretty cheap compared to those losses, especially when it goes to "charity" and you can write it off your taxes.  It's common knowledge that the Sierra Club's silence on immigration was bought by David Gelbaum, and he doesn't even profit from it.

Having aligned the left and big environmental organizations against nuclear power (thus protecting coal and gas), it remained to prevent the right from posing a threat.  That was easily done by labelling environmentalists "treehuggers" and playing up the radicals, calling climate science a fraud (which started with the same people who denied that second-hand smoke was at all harmful), and other FUD techniques.  The right was and remains generally pro-nuclear, but there is no will there to use it to actually do anything... not even clean up the air and get rid of all the massive ash dumps littering the landscape.

The resulting standoff is exactly what the fossil fuel interests want.  Natural gas is killing coal but NG is now mostly owned by Big Oil and they have always played for keeps.

(now to watch heads asplode)

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 10, 2016 5:00 PM  

Joshua Sinistar wrote:Did you notice the seamless change from warming to freezing there? Its too cold now, so its Anthropogenic Global Warming.
It's unseasonably warm in Montana; Billings is forecast to hit 75 on Tuesday.  The jet stream is not where it would normally be, and all kinds of places are getting weather that simply is not normal either.  THAT is the problem.

But what can I do to try to educate somebody who thinks that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has "global warming" in its name?  MPAI, but you're an unusually stubborn one.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar April 10, 2016 6:27 PM  

You should change your moniker to Mr. Rationalization. To claim nuclear power was stopped to save the coal business is hard to claim now that Obama is going after coal isn't it? Hillary also has the hate for coal, but do not expect Nuclear Power to even be discussed to replace it. It'll be ridiculous solar and windmill generators that they try to push which will cause energy prices to skyrocket and could even lead to brownouts and loss of service due to system overload in usage. The environmental movement was hijacked but not by oil and gas. It was a team of globalists trying to end Western Civilization and hippies who blame energy companies for just about everything. These people do not care of you have no power available, because that is exactly why they are doing this in the first place.

Blogger JimR April 10, 2016 7:34 PM  

Mr Rational

If warming is bad, then what *should* the temps be?

You state "The Sahara desert was a forest during the last glaciation. Southern California and points east are having a drought of Biblical proportions which will only get worse. As things get warmer, evaporation increases. This means many places dry out."


You do know that the Sahara is shrinking right?

"However in sharp contrast to this gloomy outlook, it seems that global
warming has exactly the opposite effect on the Sahara and the Sahel. The
Sahara is actually shrinking, with vegetation arising on land where there was
nothing but sand and rocks before"

http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mueller-sahel.pdf

Anonymous Jack Amok April 11, 2016 12:53 AM  

Mr Rational is an interesting case, and a useful datapoint in the whole sciesophistry issue.

In other respects, he's reasonable coherent and insightful - he's no raving lefty loon. But, he's hitched his intellectual wagon to the AGW cultrain and there's no budging him from it.

I suppose we should feel some sympathy. Asking him to disavow Al Gore would be like asking a Christian to disavow Jesus. Pick the prophets you follow carefully, it's hard to unfollow them if you picked wrong.

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 11, 2016 1:25 PM  

JimR wrote:Mr Rational

If warming is bad, then what *should* the temps be?

If you think we don't have good enough climate models to predict what effects our doings will have, how can you decide on a target for those effects... and who gets to decide?  Tropical India or arctic Russia?  If things go wrong, who compensates whom or does everyone just fight over it?  Safer just to leave things as they were, insofar as we can.

I am not keen on expanding the range of tropical diseases any farther north, TYVM.  Nor am I hot to boost atmospheric CO2 to levels not present since the beginning of the Eocene.  I'm already fighting one of the predicted effects of CO2 fertilization, namely the advantage of woody vines over trees.  Wild grape is a plague here, doing its best to shade and kill everything that various beetles, borers and fungal diseases aren't.  Today's surfeit of firewood is tomorrow's shrinking list of tree species which can survive; elm, ash and chestnut are gone, and I get warnings about pine, oak and maple.  What's left?

You do know that the Sahara is shrinking right?
Well, one edge of it is.  But if you look on page 7 of your own source, you'll see that researchers are speculating on the basis of climate models like the ones so often condemned by commenters here.

Joshua Sinistar wrote:To claim nuclear power was stopped to save the coal business is hard to claim now that Obama is going after coal isn't it?
If this is the ad I'm thinking of (the site is down ATM), the coal-industry pushback against nuclear power began before there was even 500 megawatts of it on the US grid.  But the real attack came from the Rockefellers, oil barons.  All of the work of Hermann Muller which led to his Nobel prize and the adoption of the "no safe dose" radiation doctrine, as well as the BEAR (later BEIR) committee which formalized his fraudulent conclusions into fossilized practice, was driven by the Rockefeller Foundation.  When this was done in the 1950's the prospect of nuclear power supplanting oil was remote, but the Rockefellers are nothing if not forward-looking; oil was a large contributor to US electric generation into the early 1970's but by the mid 1980's it had been displaced by nuclear power.  France, having neither oil nor coal of its own, almost completely replaced oil-fired generation with uranium.

Hillary also has the hate for coal, but do not expect Nuclear Power to even be discussed to replace it. It'll be ridiculous solar and windmill generators that they try to push which will cause energy prices to skyrocket and could even lead to brownouts and loss of service due to system overload in usage.
You don't get it, do you?  The plan is that exports of liquid natural gas will drive US NG prices up to world levels... after much of the existing nuclear industry has been driven out of business by temporarily-cheap gas prices.  (Classic predatory pricing.)  The so-called Clean Power Plan (which isn't nearly clean enough to actually achieve its supposed goals) will keep coal from competing either.  Now that Big Oil owns most US natural gas, it will collect most of the profits from the resulting supply squeeze.

ALL of this could have been prevented with a French-style push to uranium in the 80's and 90's, but so-called "conservatives" failed to recognize the threats from problems foretold in the 50's or even earlier.  You fail to recognize them even after they're manifest and shoved in your face; if it's off-narrative it's like you can't even see it.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar April 11, 2016 7:13 PM  

Rationalization you are fighting ghosts. I have no opposition to nuclear, but have no fear of coal. This arrogance that man can control the weather is an old conceit. I refuse to believe these fools can change the weather. Man has not survived by fear and trust in government. Adaptation is survival. The temperature is meaningless if you have power for heating and air conditioning. Controlling the weather is the game of frauds and lunatics. Man cannot control temperature. Energy lies sitting in the ground, and I intend to take it out. These irrational fears of technology is what I would expect from savages.

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 11, 2016 9:29 PM  

exfarmkid wrote:Joshua, you are mixing up "scientody" with "scientistry".

So-called "Climate Science" is hopelessly politicized and I urge you to stop playing into this.

I saw no signs in his comments that Mr. Rational wishes to destroy western civilization - quite the opposite.

Thank you.  You are the only one thus far to explicitly recognize that I'm not in with the current narrative's false dichotomy.  Everyone else is too invested in one side or the other to recognize when the narrative has been superceded by events.

Jack Amok wrote:Mr Rational [has] hitched his intellectual wagon to the AGW cultrain and there's no budging him from it.

I suppose we should feel some sympathy. Asking him to disavow Al Gore would be like asking a Christian to disavow Jesus. Pick the prophets you follow carefully, it's hard to unfollow them if you picked wrong.

Look at the projection here.  "Cultrain".  "Prophets".  "Al Gore."  Here we have all the markers of a herd-follower, who cannot even conceive that someone else might not be a herd-follower.  He can't conceive of actually digging into the facts for himself, because that is not what sheep do.  Ask him a question about IR optical depth and the response is on the order of "you cultist!"

I've been aware of anthropogenic climate change since before anyone outside of Tennessee knew who Al Gore was (I don't think I heard his name before 1992), and long before that phrase became current.  What amazes me is the skill with which the manipulators have turned what should have been dealt with as an engineering problem into an ideological dichotomy with political near-gridlock.

Anonymous Takin' a Look April 12, 2016 1:35 AM  

@ Mr. Rational

I just had an April snowstorm.
Both Saudi Arabia and Northern Vietnam have had freezing temps and snow in the last four years...explain?

Anonymous Jack Amok April 13, 2016 12:31 AM  

I've been aware of anthropogenic climate change

Oh, so you're a level 33 member then. Like I said, I suppose we should feel some sympathy. Hard to admit something you've believed for so long is wrong.

It's okay, you don't have to admit you were wrong. Just stop doubling down. Walk away. Stop investing yourself in your cult and in five years, maybe less, you'll be free.

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 13, 2016 7:22 AM  

Joshua Sinistar wrote:I have no opposition to nuclear, but have no fear of coal.
Coal leaves scars on the landscape where it comes out, and toxic dumps where its solid residue goes.  It puts mercury into the air, which winds up in fish.  Why would you NOT have "fear" of it?  That's irrational.

This arrogance that man can control the weather is an old conceit. I refuse to believe these fools can change the weather.
You deliberately conflate "try not to disrupt" with "control".  They are two different things.  Americans have been able to re-arrange landscapes wholesale and eliminate keystone species such as the passenger pigeon, american chestnut and american elm totally by accident.  Easter Islanders eliminated trees without meaning to, at a grievous cost to themselves.  Overgraze the Sahel and it goes barren.  Beware tampering with things which affect weather!

Man has not survived by fear and trust in government. Adaptation is survival. The temperature is meaningless if you have power for heating and air conditioning.
Your heat and A/C are meaningless if you don't have an economy which lets you pay for them.  I'm not finding it at the moment, but there is a Texas town whose meat-processing plant was the biggest employer and shut down because drought meant there was no meat being raised there any more.  How much climate control could those people pay for, without jobs?

There were prayer marches for rain; Rick Perry was reduced to that.  How pathetic can you get?

Energy lies sitting in the ground, and I intend to take it out. These irrational fears of technology is what I would expect from savages.
Are you seriously looking at words which say we should fully nuclearize our economy and reading "irrational fear of technology"?  That is a SPECIAL kind of stupid.

The problem isn't what's in the ground, it's what you dump into the air instead of putting back where it came from.  Some energy sources are simply better than others.  Coal, oil and gas are just too dangerous to keep using in quantity.

Takin' a Look wrote:@ Mr. Rational

I just had an April snowstorm.

So have I, and as I mentioned, a bright sunny April day with a high that never got above freezing.  There's snow forecast for today.  This means some VERY unseasonably cold air coming from points north.

Both Saudi Arabia and Northern Vietnam have had freezing temps and snow in the last four years...explain?
I'm don't follow weather patterns beyond my own little part of the Midwest, but the general problem is that the circulation patterns which used to form a reasonably good boundary between polar air and the rest have been weakened as the poles warmed, and the two zones now wander into each other's territory much more frequently.  This is how Detroit had sub-zero temps for days on end while the north slope of Alaska was in the 50's with rain.

Jack Amok wrote:I've been aware of anthropogenic climate change

Oh, so you're a level 33 member then.

Physics doesn't care what you believe.  Get that through your head.

Blogger JimR April 13, 2016 2:04 PM  

on the CAGW front, I've been enjoying the series of posts on coyoteblog.com
Starting here http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/03/denying-the-climate-catastrophe-1-introduction.html

He's Skeptical, but not blindly so. The latest in the series is "Problems With The Surface Temperature Record"
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/04/denying-the-climate-catastrophe-4b-problems-with-the-surface-temperature-record.html which nicely sums up the issues there.

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 19, 2016 11:48 PM  

I've finally had time to look at that blog.

Frankly, I'm not impressed.  The guy is not an expert but presumes to question the work of experts.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts