Solid Science

#Trump’s #EPA will no longer use human health studies to decide what’s safe for human health. Yep, you read that right. #WarOnScience nyti.ms/2o67QKY

@latimeralder Sigh. Counter factual are so common and completely in controversial. What would your risk of lung cancer been had you not smoked? Claiming crop models are untested is laughable.

@solid_science And then add 'counter factual scenarios' (= creative guesses about what might have happened in a different world) on top of your untested models and you are really in LaLa Land.

So how has the 'Climate Emergency/Chaos/Collapse/Breakdown/Catastrophe' affected world wide agriculture? How much lower have yields of our staple crops fallen? Oops. They haven't. They've been going UP not down! Not much of a 'Catastrophe' at all! Time to ask for a refund

@TSindell19257 @ChrisMartzWX Read his original post. No need to be rude, though it is kind of enjoyably ironic to insult someone posting about the importance of decency.

@solid_science @ChrisMartzWX We're talking about the fraud. The fraud is stealing our tax dollars. Try to keep up.

Elon being rich affects me in absolutely zero negative way. Most SNAP recipients suck off taxpayers’ tit and provide nothing of value in return. Sure, Elon’s companies have received significant government support through subsidies, but much of them have been repaid, earned through contracts, or structured as market mechanisms. The net fiscal and societal return has been strongly positive (though I personally do support eliminating subsidies for every and all industries). SNAP, however, is a direct welfare transfer with no repayment or performance expectation. Your comparison is baloney.

@chrisdiacon It’s always a bummer when people insult and are rude. Not productive!!!

@solid_science My original post was a bit of chucking the rock in the pond & seeing what effect the ripples had. The result is interesting A limited amount of polite support from people who are perhaps somewhat net zero sceptical. However a lot of insults & rude comments from the climate loons.

500 years ago the equivalent of todays 'net zero' morons believed the sun moved round the earth. They had scientists killed for correctly saying the earth moved round the sun Todays 'net zero' morons think Co2 is the enemy to be defeated &cancel scientists who correctly disagree

@chrisdiacon Again, you seem to think this is a common practice, but I am yet to understand who - exactly - you think is cancelling/defunding and still haven’t had a single example of a researcher canceled/defunded bc of their climate research. The BBC? It’s just not a possible conspiracy.

@solid_science Yes I am concerned people are cancelled for 'wrong think' The fact it happens in the scientific community is awful because science is never settled and develops by debate and discussion. Cancelling or defunding some who question things shouldn't, but does happen.

@latimeralder Just a quick sanity check: statistical modeling is how we make sense of the world. Basically, for anything more complicated than addition, a model is involved. The fact that these models seem too complicated is not a reflection on them, it’s a reflection on you.

@solid_science Who needs actual facts about the real world when academic models and counterfactual scenarios' tell you all you feel you want to know...

@chrisdiacon Yeah, I don’t think anybody is suggesting pollution and deforestation are good. Let’s not get distracted; have you come around regarding your original post? Ie do you still worry there is some conspiracy to cancel scientists who don’t tow the company line?

@solid_science This goes beyond energy, we should be taking much more care of our planet. Pollution in the oceans/rivers is dreadful & cutting down huge swathes of rain forest has removed a great absorber of Co2. Plastering 1000's of acres of fertile farmland with solar panels is a bad idea.

@latimeralder Whelp. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

@solid_science Models and counterfactual scenarios? Yippee I'm convinced, Not Meanwhile real growers ADD CO2 to make their crops MORE productive

@HuppenthalJohn Must admit, I’m impressed you posted a long clear explanation of why your comment didn’t make sense. Though I am less impressed with the subsequent inability to update your worldview. Too invested in your identity to change your mind? Fascinating to watch these AI interactions.

GPT: Comment on the following interaction: "human activity is driving rapid warming now." Hmmm...no. Our temperatures are determined by forces that have been in play for hundreds of years, if not thousands, and by enormously complex interactions among layers of the ocean, planets of the solar system, oddities in orbits, and vibrations of our travel through the galaxy. The statement raises a real issue, but it also mixes together factors that operate on very different timescales. A climate scientist would likely respond that: Yes, Earth's climate is influenced by many long-term forces. Changes in Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles) operate over roughly 20,000–100,000 years. Ocean circulation patterns influence climate over years to centuries. Solar variability affects climate. Volcanic activity, continental drift, and other geologic processes matter over long periods. The key question is not whether these forces exist, but whether they explain the warming observed since about 1970. Orbital cycles currently favor a very slight long-term cooling trend, not warming. Solar output has not increased enough over recent decades to explain the observed warming. Internal ocean oscillations (such as ENSO, PDO, and AMO) redistribute heat within the climate system and can temporarily accelerate or slow warming, but they do not provide a sustained source of additional energy to the Earth system. The mainstream scientific argument is therefore an attribution argument. It is not: "Climate is simple, and humans are the only influence."Rather: "Many influences affect climate, but the dominant explanation for the rapid warming observed over the last several decades is the increase in greenhouse gases from human activities."The strongest part of your statement is the reminder that the climate is an extraordinarily complex system. Scientists agree with that. The weaker part is the implication that because the climate is complex, human influence cannot be identified. Complexity cuts both ways. For example, a physician can recognize that smoking increases lung cancer risk even though human biology is vastly complex. Likewise, climate scientists attempt to separate the effects of solar changes, volcanic eruptions, ocean cycles, and greenhouse gases using multiple independent lines of evidence. There is also a philosophical difference embedded in the exchange: The statement "human activity is driving rapid warming now" is a claim about the dominant cause of the recent trend. Your response emphasizes that the climate is influenced by many causes across long periods of time. Those are not necessarily contradictory. A system can be governed by many natural influences over millennia while still having a dominant short-term forcing today. The scientific debate is therefore not whether orbital mechanics, ocean layers, solar variability, or other natural processes exist—they unquestionably do. The debate concerns their relative contributions to the warming observed over the last century, particularly since the mid-20th century. The prevailing assessment of organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is that greenhouse gases from human activities are the primary driver of recent warming, while natural factors continue to contribute to shorter-term and regional variations. My comment: of course they do!!! Trillions in funding depend on the climate narrative. They aren't going to give that up easily!!!! If ever!!!!

@ClimateRealists @grok @GibbLaytham @ClimateRealists - clearly you value grok as an authority. As an outside observer, it has just clearly and definitively explained to you that you were wrong. Has it changed your mind at all abt the science? Or are you thinking you were wrong abt grok? Fascinating to watch.

@grok @GibbLaytham Until he arrives on the scene here is another link.. wattsupwiththat.com/gore-and-bill-…

The following NASA Temperature chart may seem controversial, in that it starts from 1951. Its arraignment is based on the logical reasoning there wasn’t a great deal of coverage of official weather stations placed, to make world measurements until this period. My investigation to try and reinvent the temperature wheel may well turn out to be regarded as a folly, but I won’t let that get in the way of trying. First observation is that the calculation of a baseline results in a zero, in that, whatever you are trying to use as a point of reference starts at zero. This is a 60 year base, from 1951-2010, to measure how much has changed during the period/decade 2011-2020. The result is 0.62C. I would argue that the interpretation of this analysis is that there has been an average increase of approximately 0.1C per decade. However @grok informs me that I should demonstrate previous decadal measurements. So, with that in mind, and not trying to bore everyone, I’ve done this with the respective decadal data using 50, 40, 30, 20 year baselines. In summary over the past 60 years our planet has warmed by at least 0.62C. Any other calculations are based on guess work, however my apologies in advance if people were recording data in the Amazon Jungle, deepest Africa or the Antarctic prior to the 1950’s. Those of you will note the content of the following baseline uses different data to the top table, this is because a base makes a readjustment each time it’s used. So the next base, for 70 years, will change the current measurement of 0.62c to a lower figure. The sixty million dollar question is, what is it that’s being measured. I have no doubt it’s not the effect of man made CO2, CO2 on its own maybe, but my guess it’s Water Vapour.

People truly do not understand how academic research works. It’s a problem.

@chrisdiacon This has been an interesting convo, thx. It made me realize that academics need to do a better job communicating how we generate knowledge. We’re unusual in that we are decentralized and have no vested interest in our findings fitting any narrative-that should be publicized.

@solid_science A high profile example who was passionate about the environment was botanist David Bellamy who said man made climate change was 'poppycock' He was quickly cancelled by the BBC There are plenty of examples of this happening to climate scientists who question the approved narrative

@chrisdiacon There is no global conspiracy (nor could there be). The reason climate scientists agree on what’s happening is because the fundamentals are well understood. If there is ever compelling data showing the basics are wrong, journals will be fighting each other to publish it.

@chrisdiacon I have published peer reviewed articles on climate change as a professional academic for 15 years (including in the proceedings of the royal society). UK academics can publish in non-UK journals, this is not the 1600s.

@chrisdiacon Academic publishers are mostly run by academic researchers (eg I am a professor at a university and serve as an editor of a scientific journal). I can assure you, there is nobody reviewing my decisions about whether or not to publish a paper. My decisions are based on peer review

@chrisdiacon You seem to be under the impression that there is some overseeing body that reviews/censors research. That is not the case. Credible evidence conflicting with mainstream ideas is easy to publish, bc it’s viewed as important.

@chrisdiacon He eventually published a paper on climate science. His views have been ignored by the scientific community bc- to be blunt-they’re stupid. But he was able to publish them. Nobody is approving/not approving any sort of narrative. People do ignore charlatans, but that’s different.

@chrisdiacon For Bellamy to be Galileo, he would have had to have an original insight, grounded in novel data, that he tried to publish/explain and was not allowed to do that. He based his views on Singer, who made up the data informing those views (about glacial retreat).

@chrisdiacon His statements on climate change were based on a paper that did not exist (not his own research). They have had no impact on the field bc they’re baseless (they’re essentially a misquote), the BBC is not in any way an arbiter of climate science.