Your confirmation bias is once again showing on climate change, picking Judith Curry being interviewed by John Stossel no less.
Interestingly Judith Curry was hired as an expert witness by the state of Montana in their defense of a lawsuit, brought by young people, claiming that Montana was violating their rights by not addressing climate…
Your confirmation bias is once again showing on climate change, picking Judith Curry being interviewed by John Stossel no less.
Interestingly Judith Curry was hired as an expert witness by the state of Montana in their defense of a lawsuit, brought by young people, claiming that Montana was violating their rights by not addressing climate change. Apparently the state never even put her on the witness stand and the judge, a Montana judge! ruled decisively in favor of the young people thank goodness.
Perhaps you should address the documented fact that even the big oil companies like Exxon asked their scientists to project what the temperature impacts of climate change would be in the decades to come back in the 1970s. The scientists of course, came up with accurate projections and warned Exxon of the disastrous consequences of the continued burning of oil.
Exxon being more interested in bucks than human Life proceeded to use this information to Climate proof their rigs and other machinery, and hide their scientists conclusions from the public. They then poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the exact same kind of PR as the cigarette manufactures did. Doubt, doubt doubt was their mantra and it’s succeeded.
And so folks like you support an industry that is documented to prematurely kill close to 10 million people a year from air pollution caused by fossil fuel burning alone.
Exactly how is that compatible with the Hippocratic oath?
I truly don’t understand why you and so many of the other doctors who I admire for their independence and fresh thinking on health and an appropriate distrust of big Pharma and big medicine fall for the distortions and lies and propaganda of the carbon combustion complex, the most powerful richest, most profitable, and most venal industry in the history of the world.
Never before seen in modern history, marine heat waves covering 40% of the oceans are killing, literally billions of sea creatures as I write this, Antarctic ice loss never imagined record-breaking heat on every continent, glaciers rapidly melting on every continent (do you also deny that is happening) apparently mean obviously mean nothing to you.
I will continue to read your columns because they’re entertaining and informative. Yet I will continue to grimace every time I see your utterly biased and uninformed takes on climate change.
Too much question-begging nonsense, abject lies, and banal ignorance in this one.
Also, when someone says "documented" at least twice, cites nothing, yet makes a bullshit assertion (Exon predicted 2023 temps in 1970), then it's not only that they are lying, it's that Herb knows he's lying, and thus, Herb is a liar. His defining characteristic.
Finally, on the subject of laughable ignorance, the ocean temps.
Don't let him in on the known and now acknowledged cause of those, Mike.
.....and the other problem with "documentation" is that it is mostly the output of models which in the case of global temperatures cannot be made to conform to observations.
Climate models can NEVER predict accurately, and this was known a LONG time ago (1961, my birth year, so 62 years ago) when they first began trying. IN FACT, it was the attempt to do so and seeing that the exact same model can toss off wildly different results just by miniscule rounding "errors" in decimal places out to the thousandths and beyond...that led to what's called Chaos Theory.
"The first real experiment in chaos theory was conducted by a meteorologist, Edward Lorenz. Lorenz worked with a system of equations to predict the weather. In 1961, Lorenz wanted to recreate a past weather sequence using a computer model based on 12 variables, including wind speed and temperature. These variables, or values, were graphed with lines that rose and fell over time. Lorenz was repeating an earlier simulation in 1961.
"However, on this day, Lorenz rounded his variable values to just three decimal places instead of six. This tiny change drastically transformed the whole pattern of two months of simulated weather. Thus, Lorenz proved that seemingly insignificant factors can have a huge effect on the overall outcome.
"Chaos theory explores the effects of small occurrences that can dramatically affect the results of seemingly unrelated events."
There are many irrational numbers in nature (numbers that can't be expressed as a ratio of integers, like pie, 3.141....off into infinity with no repeating sequences) that are needed to ESTIMATE natural phenomenon. But the estimates are always wrong in absolute terms, and often WILDLY wrong.
Any person saying "the climate model predicts," is either so ignorant as to be stupid, or just plain stupid...and probably an abject automatic liar. Like what's-his-face up there.
FYI climate change may be real but the cause remains elusive. I do not believe the carbon hypotheses and neither should you. Actually I think few really believe it. If they did...don't you think we would be doing more? Look how they treated us under Covid? Why push everything onto electricity when the Grid is not close to being able to handle it?... and when it is clear you cannot generate enough green energy to do that using current green sources! Green cars even with subsidies are unaffordable for the common man!!! C' mon man. How is that a solution?
If 'they' were serious we'd be 'all in' for nuclear and we'd solve the storage/disposal problem when we had to. Moreover, with China such a huge polluter why not just put massive tariffs on Chinese goods? Why does Biden block carbon in the US and try to help Venezuela and Iran to pump more -they are not even our Friends!!! . Its all STUPID!! Of course its not a real threat.. This is not how any reasonable official would treat an exigent health -survival - issue. This is a is a bogus woke mind control game. And I'm Not playing!!! Good luck! Let see Who Dunnit? Colonel Exxon in the oil field with the drill derrick! Yeah that's it...
real scientists do not see this carbon thing as that damaging. The models do not work. they do not fit PAST data. In this paper the scientists assert there is a carbon saturation point for climate and we are already near it. its a very good long through paper. Climate changer believers never mention the positive aspect of more carbon like that it stimulates plant growth - a sort of automatic stabilizer. .
The Montana case rested on the vaguely feel-good phrase in the Montana Constitution that requires that the state "shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations." Whoever authored that phrase was either not very bright or very devious.
As to the rest, the global warming crowd is bigger and better funded by orders of magnitude than any "carbon combustion complex" could even imagine. Additionally, and far more important these days, the "global warming" crowd is better connected to the politically powerful, because "global warming" is the pretext for a theoretically unlimited concentration of power. As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state", and any issue that can be presented as a "war" justifies, once again, enormous concentrations of power. Think of the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism. Facts don't matter in these passionate endeavors, only the desire to "do something".
Your confirmation bias is once again showing on climate change, picking Judith Curry being interviewed by John Stossel no less.
Interestingly Judith Curry was hired as an expert witness by the state of Montana in their defense of a lawsuit, brought by young people, claiming that Montana was violating their rights by not addressing climate change. Apparently the state never even put her on the witness stand and the judge, a Montana judge! ruled decisively in favor of the young people thank goodness.
Perhaps you should address the documented fact that even the big oil companies like Exxon asked their scientists to project what the temperature impacts of climate change would be in the decades to come back in the 1970s. The scientists of course, came up with accurate projections and warned Exxon of the disastrous consequences of the continued burning of oil.
Exxon being more interested in bucks than human Life proceeded to use this information to Climate proof their rigs and other machinery, and hide their scientists conclusions from the public. They then poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the exact same kind of PR as the cigarette manufactures did. Doubt, doubt doubt was their mantra and it’s succeeded.
And so folks like you support an industry that is documented to prematurely kill close to 10 million people a year from air pollution caused by fossil fuel burning alone.
Exactly how is that compatible with the Hippocratic oath?
I truly don’t understand why you and so many of the other doctors who I admire for their independence and fresh thinking on health and an appropriate distrust of big Pharma and big medicine fall for the distortions and lies and propaganda of the carbon combustion complex, the most powerful richest, most profitable, and most venal industry in the history of the world.
Never before seen in modern history, marine heat waves covering 40% of the oceans are killing, literally billions of sea creatures as I write this, Antarctic ice loss never imagined record-breaking heat on every continent, glaciers rapidly melting on every continent (do you also deny that is happening) apparently mean obviously mean nothing to you.
I will continue to read your columns because they’re entertaining and informative. Yet I will continue to grimace every time I see your utterly biased and uninformed takes on climate change.
Too much question-begging nonsense, abject lies, and banal ignorance in this one.
Also, when someone says "documented" at least twice, cites nothing, yet makes a bullshit assertion (Exon predicted 2023 temps in 1970), then it's not only that they are lying, it's that Herb knows he's lying, and thus, Herb is a liar. His defining characteristic.
Finally, on the subject of laughable ignorance, the ocean temps.
Don't let him in on the known and now acknowledged cause of those, Mike.
You've got a true-believer-liar on your hands.
.....and the other problem with "documentation" is that it is mostly the output of models which in the case of global temperatures cannot be made to conform to observations.
Climate models can NEVER predict accurately, and this was known a LONG time ago (1961, my birth year, so 62 years ago) when they first began trying. IN FACT, it was the attempt to do so and seeing that the exact same model can toss off wildly different results just by miniscule rounding "errors" in decimal places out to the thousandths and beyond...that led to what's called Chaos Theory.
"The first real experiment in chaos theory was conducted by a meteorologist, Edward Lorenz. Lorenz worked with a system of equations to predict the weather. In 1961, Lorenz wanted to recreate a past weather sequence using a computer model based on 12 variables, including wind speed and temperature. These variables, or values, were graphed with lines that rose and fell over time. Lorenz was repeating an earlier simulation in 1961.
"However, on this day, Lorenz rounded his variable values to just three decimal places instead of six. This tiny change drastically transformed the whole pattern of two months of simulated weather. Thus, Lorenz proved that seemingly insignificant factors can have a huge effect on the overall outcome.
"Chaos theory explores the effects of small occurrences that can dramatically affect the results of seemingly unrelated events."
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/chaos-theory.asp
There are many irrational numbers in nature (numbers that can't be expressed as a ratio of integers, like pie, 3.141....off into infinity with no repeating sequences) that are needed to ESTIMATE natural phenomenon. But the estimates are always wrong in absolute terms, and often WILDLY wrong.
Any person saying "the climate model predicts," is either so ignorant as to be stupid, or just plain stupid...and probably an abject automatic liar. Like what's-his-face up there.
FYI climate change may be real but the cause remains elusive. I do not believe the carbon hypotheses and neither should you. Actually I think few really believe it. If they did...don't you think we would be doing more? Look how they treated us under Covid? Why push everything onto electricity when the Grid is not close to being able to handle it?... and when it is clear you cannot generate enough green energy to do that using current green sources! Green cars even with subsidies are unaffordable for the common man!!! C' mon man. How is that a solution?
If 'they' were serious we'd be 'all in' for nuclear and we'd solve the storage/disposal problem when we had to. Moreover, with China such a huge polluter why not just put massive tariffs on Chinese goods? Why does Biden block carbon in the US and try to help Venezuela and Iran to pump more -they are not even our Friends!!! . Its all STUPID!! Of course its not a real threat.. This is not how any reasonable official would treat an exigent health -survival - issue. This is a is a bogus woke mind control game. And I'm Not playing!!! Good luck! Let see Who Dunnit? Colonel Exxon in the oil field with the drill derrick! Yeah that's it...
really?
read this https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Happer-Lindzen-EPA-Power-Plants-2023-07-19.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
real scientists do not see this carbon thing as that damaging. The models do not work. they do not fit PAST data. In this paper the scientists assert there is a carbon saturation point for climate and we are already near it. its a very good long through paper. Climate changer believers never mention the positive aspect of more carbon like that it stimulates plant growth - a sort of automatic stabilizer. .
This documentation you talk about (to kill 10 million people) is the output of models...which will all know are 100% accurate (not).
I think Victoria's Secret models do have blood on their hands...never trust a model...
Maybe, but you just can't tell a Victoria's Secret what you want it to do and have it happen--
How would you argue with this clip? https://youtu.be/LmmmgiPha_Y
When I like a comment, that doesn't mean I agree with it. Only that I have read it.
The Montana case rested on the vaguely feel-good phrase in the Montana Constitution that requires that the state "shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations." Whoever authored that phrase was either not very bright or very devious.
As to the rest, the global warming crowd is bigger and better funded by orders of magnitude than any "carbon combustion complex" could even imagine. Additionally, and far more important these days, the "global warming" crowd is better connected to the politically powerful, because "global warming" is the pretext for a theoretically unlimited concentration of power. As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state", and any issue that can be presented as a "war" justifies, once again, enormous concentrations of power. Think of the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism. Facts don't matter in these passionate endeavors, only the desire to "do something".