• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Solar Impact on Climate


While you love to pretend that whackadoodle theories always turn out right (and the one referenced above was disproven precisely because there was overwhelming evidence from ELSEWHERE to backup the claims - in other words, now there is a scierntific consensus that humans arrived earlier!), you miss stuff like this:

Pity poor Peter Duesberg; even Medical Hypotheses has dissed him – Respectful Insolence

Pity poor Peter Duesberg; even Medical Hypotheses has dissed him
Posted by Orac on September 15, 2009

Pity poor Peter Duesberg.

Back in the 1980s, he was on the top of the world, scientifically speaking. A brilliant virologist with an impressive record of accomplishment, publication, and funding, he seemed to be on a short track to an eventual Nobel Prize. Then something happened. The AIDS epidemic happened. Something about the AIDS epidemic led this excellent scientist in the late 1980s to fall directly into pseudoscience and crankery by latching onto and promoting the idea that HIV does not cause AIDS. Of course, at the time scientists didn’t yet know a lot about the virus and how it slowly destroyed the immune system. There was a lot of room for new knowledge. It might have been possible that something other than HIV was contributing to the development of AIDS. However, science and evidence accumulated. More importantly, in the 1990s, new antiretroviral drugs were developed. The success at prolonging the lives of HIV patients of drug cocktails designed to target HIV by different mechanisms and thus forestall the development of resistance represented the final evidence that HIV definitely caused AIDS. Scientists’ understanding of the virus had led for the first time to effective therapies–and in record time, a mere decade A deadly disease became a chronically manageable one.

None of this mattered to HIV/AIDS denialists. They continued to believe that it couldn’t possibly by HIV that cause the slow destruction of the immune system suffered by AIDS patients. They continued to insist that it must be some combination of pills, diseases spread by promiscuous sex, or other vague, unnamed factors. And Peter Duesberg was right there among them, destroying his own scientific career in the process. Oh, sure, he’s recently tried to resurrect it by pushing an interesting “everything old is new again” hypothesis for cancer causation, but even doing that he’s behaved like a crank by branding his hypothesis The One True Cause of Cancer and castigating other scientists for not immediately appreciating his brilliance.

About a week ago, for some reason that still escapes me, a whim took me and I decided to see what Duesberg was up to, scientifically speaking. So I did a quick PubMed on Peter Duesberg’s name, and I came across this abstract for a Medical Hypothesis article by Duesberg. My first reaction was to think was that Duesberg has really come down in the world if he’s actually publishing in Medical Hypotheses these days. My second reaction was laughter, and lots of it. Read the abstract and you will see why:

WITHDRAWN: HIV-AIDS hypothesis out of touch with South African AIDS – A new perspective.

Duesberg PH, Nicholson JM, Rasnick D, Fiala C, Bauer HH.
Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Donner Laboratory, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.

This Article-in-Press has been withdrawn pending the results of an investigation. The editorial policy of Medical Hypotheses makes it clear that the journal considers “radical, speculative, and non-mainstream scientific ideas”, and articles will only be acceptable if they are “coherent and clearly expressed.” However, we have received serious expressions of concern about the quality of this article, which contains highly controversial opinions about the causes of AIDS, opinions that could potentially be damaging to global public health. Concern has also been expressed that the article contains potentially libelous material. Given these important signals of concern, we judge it correct to investigate the circumstances in which this article came to be published online. When the investigation and review have been completed we will issue a further statement. Until that time, the article has been removed from all Elsevier databases. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at 404.

Oh. My. God. Does it get any lower than having your article withdrawn by Medical Hypotheses?
 
While you love to pretend that whackadoodle theories always turn out right (and the one referenced above was disproven precisely because there was overwhelming evidence from ELSEWHERE to backup the claims - in other words, now there is a scierntific consensus that humans arrived earlier!), you miss stuff like this:

Most new theories fail. That is neither a new nor an important observation.
 
I think the line line was exactly that.

Show some sort of support for the idea that it was not.

That is exactly the point of the debate.
I just want clarification: you think temperature projections were drawn arbitrarily based on no actual information?
 
Got a theory that breaks a consensus? Expect aggressive silence. Snickering. Wait decades


For a long time it was thought the first people arrived in the Americas around 13,000 years ago. Jacques Cinq-Marc found a set of caves in the Yukon called the Bluefish Caves laden with bones marked with cuts from human butchering. They were radiocarbon dated as 24,000 years old. Cinq-Marcs published a series of papers between 1979-2001.
This is a topic that doesn’t have a $1.5 Trillion dollar industry riding on it. No political careers are made or broken if humans arrived in the Americas millenia earlier. Yet still, the smug scoffing of the consensus slowed progress in science for decades.
What Happens When an Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking?
Heather Pringer, Smithsonian.com
Cinq-Mars… work at Bluefish Caves suggested that Asian hunters roamed northern Yukon at least 11,000 years before the arrival of the Clovis people. And other research projects lent some support to the idea. At a small scattering of sites, from Meadowcroft in Pennsylvania to Monte Verde in Chile, archaeologists had unearthed hearths, stone tools and butchered animal remains that pointed to an earlier migration to the Americas. But rather than launching a major new search for more early evidence, the finds stirred fierce opposition and a bitter debate, “one of the most acrimonious—and unfruitful—in all of science,” noted the journal Nature.
But relatively few of Cinq-Mars’s peers shared his confidence. And as I began regularly attending archaeological conferences in the years following that trip to Bluefish Caves, I saw what Cinq-Mars was up against. Sitting in halls with Canadian and American researchers, I witnessed what happened when archaeologists presented data that contradicted the Clovis first model. Often a polite bemusement spread through the room, as if the audience was dealing with some crackpot uncle, or the atmosphere grew testy and tense as someone began grilling the presenter. But once or twice, the mask of professional respect slipped completely; I heard laughter and snickering in the room. Tom Dillehay remembers such conferences well. “Some Clovis first people had a suffocating air of defiance and superiority at times,” he says.
Stung as he was by the criticism, Cinq-Mars refused to back down. None of the explanations for splintered bones, he noted, could account for the complex chain of steps that produced the mammoth-bone flake tool his team found. But by then, serious doubts about the Bluefish Caves evidence had been sown, taking firm root in the archaeological community: Hardly anyone was listening. Cinq-Mars couldn’t believe it. At one presentation he gave, “they laughed at me,” he says angrily today. “They found me cute.” Embittered by the response, he stopped attending conferences, and gave up defending the site publicly. What was the point? To Cinq-Mars, the Clovis first supporters seemed almost brainwashed.
For Mackie and others, the protracted battle over the Clovis first model now stands as a cautionary tale for archaeologists. Notes Mackie, “Clovis first will, I believe, go down as a classic example of a paradigm shift, in which the evidence for the collapse of an old model is present for many years before it actually collapses, producing a sort of zombie model that won’t die.”
Keep reading →

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Another excellent link! :thumbs: In view of what I have read many times, I have come to the conclusion that scientists are without a doubt the most patient, or perhaps just downright stubborn, group of humans on earth when they believe something, especially since it often takes years to be proven correct! :mrgreen:

Several of the posters in the "Comments" section of this link - which I always enjoy reading - summed up their thoughts very bluntly by stating that many times authority replaces evidence, which means you can't question them, so "the fate of unconventional scientists is always to be burnt by the current "priesthood." :shock:
 
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Another excellent link! :thumbs: In view of what I have read many times, I have come to the conclusion that scientists are without a doubt the most patient, or perhaps just downright stubborn, group of humans on earth when they believe something, especially since it often takes years to be proven correct! :mrgreen:

In general scientists do change their views in light of new evidence, which often is not the case for folk in the general population (religious and political views especially!).

The mistake which Joanne Nova makes here is in forgetting - or deliberately ignoring - the body of evidence which existed and formed the basis of an older scientific consensus in the first place. As I suggested earlier in this very thread, when there exists a preponderance of evidence favouring one perspective, a single new piece of the puzzle often is not enough to justify immediately overturning previous understanding. That's not stubbornness, that's just weighing the available evidence; just basic common sense! If the newer perspective is correct, usually more evidence will accumulate or more and more scientists will be swayed by its plausibility, but supposing that there is some kind of problem with the fact that this process takes time is a misguided perspective, in my opinion.

It is however interesting to note how this compares with the often-alleged 'global cooling consensus' in the 1970s. Strangely, it is often contrarians such as Joanne Nova herself who can be found asserting that such a 'consensus' existed: But the obvious implication that there must therefore have been a very solid weight of evidence accumulating in the 70s and 80s to overturn that alleged 'consensus' seems to elude her :lol:
 
Last edited:
I just want clarification: you think temperature projections were drawn arbitrarily based on no actual information?

I think the temperature projections were based on a sort of wish and a fudge.

That the hypothesis was very weak back in 1998 and the data since then has shown this settled science to be wrong. That would not be bad in a purely accademic sense if the science had not been claimed to be settled but with the blatant lying that has happened since to justify the doom speaking and the millions of deaths due to it people should be hung.
 
I think the temperature projections were based on a sort of wish and a fudge.

Then there's nothing more I can discuss with you. You've bought into some right wing paranoid fantasy about a grand conspiracy of scientists, or something. You can't reason someone out of an opinion they didn't reason themselves into. Your requests for supporting information are a smokescreen. What your motive is, I couldn't say. But you certainly aren't trying to debate anything.

I'm not even going to bother with your biofuel madness again. Your own math showed your estimate to be wrong, but you'll still repeat it.
 
Then there's nothing more I can discuss with you. You've bought into some right wing paranoid fantasy about a grand conspiracy of scientists, or something. You can't reason someone out of an opinion they didn't reason themselves into. Your requests for supporting information are a smokescreen. What your motive is, I couldn't say. But you certainly aren't trying to debate anything.

I'm not even going to bother with your biofuel madness again. Your own math showed your estimate to be wrong, but you'll still repeat it.

1, In science it is customary to support your claims with some sort of evidence. This is an opportunity to show off your evidence of the need to consider the prospect of massive warming, which still would be less than normal anual variation, but you run away.

2, I will take this opportunity to show you supporting evidence of how much impact the price incease of 30% to 70% is having on the life expectancy of the poor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_curve#/media/File:PrestonCurve2005.JPG

This graph shows life expectancy vs income.

The x axis is divided into $10,000 intervals so it is a bit difficult to see the impact on the poorest 3 billion people as they all get less than $5 a day.

How much do you think the increase in effective income of somebody on $1.25 a day would be if they could buy food at a realistic, not inflated, price? I expect it would be $0.55 a day or 44%. That would raise the life expectancy of the poorest billion from 42ish to maybe 52ish. That makes 6 million less deaths from that poorest billion.

So indeed that would imply that the change of not using biofuel would be in the region of 12 million people living rather than dying in the first year. Fair point. I will take the correction.

Obviously that does not include the effect of the growth in the economy of the poor. That will make even more impact in future years. But hey, actually imagining what the real world is like is not what you want to do so have a happy day.
 
1, In science it is customary to support your claims with some sort of evidence. This is an opportunity to show off your evidence of the need to consider the prospect of massive warming, which still would be less than normal anual variation, but you run away.

Bull****. Someone who thinks temperature projection charts were drawn arbitrarily doesn't want evidence. You want evidence? Read up on climate models and how they work. Read up on Equilibrium and Transient Climate Sensitivity, and various methods used to try and derive those numbers. But don't ****ing sit there and claim it's all just made up and pretend you're going to be swayed by evidence.

2, I will take this opportunity to show you supporting evidence of how much impact the price incease of 30% to 70% is having on the life expectancy of the poor.

At least you started with real data this time instead of numbers you literally made up. Of course, you then went and made up some more numbers about how much "you expect" prices would change.

Even so, you're making the same math error now as you did before. So sad.
 
Bull****. Someone who thinks temperature projection charts were drawn arbitrarily doesn't want evidence. You want evidence? Read up on climate models and how they work. Read up on Equilibrium and Transient Climate Sensitivity, and various methods used to try and derive those numbers. But don't ****ing sit there and claim it's all just made up and pretend you're going to be swayed by evidence.



At least you started with real data this time instead of numbers you literally made up. Of course, you then went and made up some more numbers about how much "you expect" prices would change.

Even so, you're making the same math error now as you did before. So sad.

No. If you show me evidence that the projections are justified I will agree with you.

That will not change my view that there is nothing to fear from the projected warming though.

That would take somebody to tell me what actual problems are actually expected from the projected warming and support those expectations with evidence and a strong mechanism.

That said since I have not been answered in that way before I have no expectation of you doing so. I expect that you will run away and give faux outrage and disgust that you are being so challenged just as you have over this point of showing anything to back up the projections based on the warming of 1978 to 1998 and then loads.
 
Sigh.

1, In science it is customary to support your claims with some sort of evidence.

And just to recap here, this "tens of millions of deaths per year" claim is one
> which from the beginning you clearly showed us was a product of malice and dishonesty by your repeated slander of multiple forum members as being 'complicit' in your made-up number of deaths;
> which is literally impossible given the global death rates and hunger-related death rates (being less than half your number);
> which is over one hundred times larger than the figure that even a right-wing think-tank produced;
> which you never even tried to substantiate for the first couple of years you were using it;
> and which was vastly larger than the figure which your own dodgy guess-based maths produced when you (finally) tried to retroactively justify it.

the price incease of 30% to 70% is having on the life expectancy of the poor.

A claim which you have never substantiated. Late 2007 was when the EU instituted its formal biofuel crop targets, and while food prices spiked in 2008 (can anyone think of a reason that may have been?) and you did once provide a single source estimating a biofuel crop influence on that, since then global food prices have declined by over 15%.
home_graph_3.jpg



It shows national GDP per capita vs life expectancy, and even that is not the blunt propaganda instrument you're trying to make it. Preston himself asserted that "Factors exogenous to a country’s current level of income are identified as being responsible for some 84% of the increase in life expectancy during the period. . . . We have ‘explained’ only some 16% of the rise in life expectancy during the period."

Asserting it to be 100% causative is absurd; extrapolating to an individual level, as if rates of crime, disease prevalence, natural disasters, warfare, infrastructure and so would be dramatically changed in a few years by an (alleged and unsubstantiated) couple of hundred extra dollars of disposable income in some individuals' pockets is even more ridiculous.

How much do you think the increase in effective income of somebody on $1.25 a day would be if they could buy food at a realistic, not inflated, price? I expect it would be $0.55 a day or 44%. That would raise the life expectancy of the poorest billion from 42ish to maybe 52ish. That makes 6 million less deaths from that poorest billion.

So indeed that would imply that the change of not using biofuel would be in the region of 12 million people living rather than dying in the first year. Fair point. I will take the correction.

Once again, you are pathetically wrong even using your made-up numbers. 1billion/42 minus 1billion/52 would be 4.6 million if that were accurate for the poorest billion, and at about a quarter of the impact for the third billion group and midway for the second the total would be (4.6 + 4.6/4 + 4.6/2.5) less than 8 million.

But that doesn't matter, because your assertion that 0.55 dollars per day is 30-70% of what the poorest billion spent on food before the alleged/unsubstantiated biofuel increases would mean that in the world inside your head they are now spending (0.55/0.7 + 0.55) $1.34 to $2.38 per day on food, using less than $1.25 per day.

This is what happens when you make **** up :roll:
 
Last edited:
Does anyone reading the above think it can't possibly get any worse?

Poor dears, you just don't know Tim do you?

The x axis is divided into $10,000 intervals so it is a bit difficult to see the impact on the poorest 3 billion people as they all get less than $5 a day.

It's not at all difficult (if it as a valid approach to begin with) because the curve formula is on the damn graph!

So even ignoring all of the above
- even ignoring the fact that this is and always has been a malicious lie which Tim is now trying desperately to retrospectely justify
- even ignoring the fact that he's always been shown his claim is literally impossible
- even ignoring the fact that his alleged food price increase is unsubstantiated
- even ignoring his wild abuse of Preston's curve, implying 100% causation and absurdly switching from the national to individual spheres
- even ignoring the dismal repeated failure of Tim's attempts at mathematics
- and even ignoring the fact that his made-up 0.55 dollar-a-day figure is likewise impossible...

...Even just using these straight-from-his-ass figures, Tim is out by a factor of seven. Since $1.25 a day is ~$457 per year, 1 billion divided by that supposed life expectancy of 51.4 (6.6354*ln(457)+10.754) minus the estimate with an extra 0.55 per day (~$657 per year, 53.8 life expectancy) would be a difference of ~875,000 deaths per year.

Granted, the last time he tried this desperate retrospective justification game his abysmal maths was out by a factor of forty. So arguably, this is an improvement. (How bad is that - that being out by a factor of seven is an improvement?) But still...

Even ignoring all these other absurdities and made-up bull****, Tim decided to not bother reading his own graph and instead simply rounded 875 thousand up to 6 million.



Again, the important point here is that his assertions have always been malicious, his food price claims remain unsubstantiated, his recent abuse of Preston's curve is ridiculous to begin with and his conclusion has always been literally impossible in the end. But I thought I should mention, simply to further highlight Tim's dishonesty, that he is wildly and laughably incorrect in his desperate retrospective justification attempts even by his own made-up figures and 'reasoning' - yet again!
 
Last edited:

No. If you show me evidence that the projections are justified I will agree with you.

That will not change my view that there is nothing to fear from the projected warming though.

That would take somebody to tell me what actual problems are actually expected from the projected warming and support those expectations with evidence and a strong mechanism.

That said since I have not been answered in that way before I have no expectation of you doing so. I expect that you will run away and give faux outrage and disgust that you are being so challenged just as you have over this point of showing anything to back up the projections based on the warming of 1978 to 1998 and then loads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circulation_model

A tip of the iceberg. You wont read any of it, everyone knows that.
 
Do yet again!

So how many years would an increase purchasing power of +50% do to the life expectancy of somebody on $1.25 a day do?

If you had an expected life of 10 years on a starvation diet and suddenly you could get 50% more food you would probably not be starving.

That would mean that most of those who were about to die in the poorest billion or three would live a lot longer, the weakest already having poped off. I am back to the 20 million less in deaths next year if we stopped doing this horror today.
 
So how many years would an increase purchasing power of +50% do to the life expectancy of somebody on $1.25 a day do?

If you had an expected life of 10 years on a starvation diet and suddenly you could get 50% more food you would probably not be starving.

That would mean that most of those who were about to die in the poorest billion or three would live a lot longer, the weakest already having poped off. I am back to the 20 million less in deaths next year if we stopped doing this horror today.

Your second attempt at retrospective justification once again failed miserably - with even the arbitrary numbers and fallacious 'reasoning' you've pulled out of thin air giving a result vastly lower than you want to believe - so instead you're doubling down on your earlier, unsubstantiated, even more obviously bull**** claims.

And at this point I don't think anyone is surprised.






Edit: Not that it will make the slightest difference to Tim, but for everyone else's benefit (and as Tim has been told on multiple previous occasions) it really is no exaggeration that this claim is literally impossible. The global crude death rate has consistently declined over time:
Code:
Country or Area	Year(s)		Variant		Value
World		2010-2015	Medium variant	8.1
World		2005-2010	Medium variant	8.1
World		2000-2005	Medium variant	8.4
World		1995-2000	Medium variant	8.8
World		1990-1995	Medium variant	9.1
World		1985-1990	Medium variant	9.4
World		1980-1985	Medium variant	10.0
World		1975-1980	Medium variant	10.6
World		1970-1975	Medium variant	11.6
World		1965-1970	Medium variant	12.9
World		1960-1965	Medium variant	16.2
World		1955-1960	Medium variant	17.3
World		1950-1955	Medium variant	19.1

20 million deaths per year globally is almost 3 per thousand. Tim's assertion is that the 2000-2005 global crude death rate somehow should 'really' be 5.6. He is asserting that over 36% of all deaths in the world are caused by (his still unsubstantiated) assertions about food price fluctuations due to biofuels.
 
Last edited:
Your second attempt at retrospective justification once again failed miserably - with even the arbitrary numbers and fallacious 'reasoning' you've pulled out of thin air giving a result vastly lower than you want to believe - so instead you're doubling down on your earlier, unsubstantiated, even more obviously bull**** claims.

And at this point I don't think anyone is surprised.
I cannot speak to Tim's numbers as I do not know much about the subject,
but much of the worlds population lives very close to the margins of daily survival.
Even a small change to the cost of food could put them over the edge.
Even in the 1st world, we see it to some extent with the elderly on fixed incomes.
If they retired 30 or more years ago, they might have been ok then, but inflation eats
away to the point that they are forced to make difficult choices, with their limited resources.
 
I cannot speak to Tim's numbers as I do not know much about the subject,

You could, but apparently you don't want to. You know that for years he promoted this malicious slander without even an attempt at evidence. You've probably seen the threads where even a right-wing think tank's estimate of biofuel-related has been shown to him - repeatedly, initially by Jack Hays - which is over 100 times smaller than his claim. And you can certainly see in these last few posts that his recent multiple desperate attempts at retrospective justification have all been based on abysmal maths, ridiculous 'reasoning' and numbers which he has simply pulled out of his ass.

Starting with a sentence like that, your post looks more like an effort to provide a smokescreen for his vicious propaganda than any kind of honest assessment on your own part.
 
You could, but apparently you don't want to. You know that for years he promoted this malicious slander without even an attempt at evidence. You've probably seen the threads where even a right-wing think tank's estimate of biofuel-related has been shown to him - repeatedly, initially by Jack Hays - which is over 100 times smaller than his claim. And you can certainly see in these last few posts that his recent multiple desperate attempts at retrospective justification have all been based on abysmal maths, ridiculous 'reasoning' and numbers which he has simply pulled out of his ass.

Starting with a sentence like that, your post looks more like an effort to provide a smokescreen for his vicious propaganda than any kind of honest assessment on your own part.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-...11/jun/01/biofuels-driving-food-prices-higher

Does this start o get you to see that biofuel is causing food prices to be higheer than they should be?
 
https://www.theguardian.com/global-...11/jun/01/biofuels-driving-food-prices-higher

Does this start o get you to see that biofuel is causing food prices to be higheer than they should be?

The article does not support any of your figures or assertions. If someone posted a link showing that the Fukushima disaster spread radioactive materials to surrounding waters, which is true, and then asserted that nuclear power kills millions of people every year, they would still be blatant liars - just as you are. You have proven it yet again by dishonestly pretending that I have ever disputed a negative impact from biofuels: I have repeatedly said in replies to you that the figure estimated by a right-wing think tank which Jack showed you (~192,000 deaths per year) may or may not be correct, but is at least plausible. For years you have asserted a figure over one hundred times higher than that without even a pretense of supporting evidence, and your recent efforts at retrospective justification have again and again proven to be dismal attempts at ad hoc mathematics based on numbers that you've pulled out of thin air.

Pretending that someone pointing out your bull**** is equivalent to asserting a position on biofuels generally would be absurd to begin with. But when (as in this case) your suggestion directly contradicts what that person has repeatedly told you, it is just another example of the malicious slander you always seem to invoke on this issue.



As Deuce has noted on previous occasions, by making up obviously malicious and obviously absurd lies on this topic the only thing you can possibly accomplish is to trivialize its importance as mere crackpot propaganda in the minds of anyone not familiar with it. By trivializing the issue in this manner, you are more complicit than most in any consequences of it. Do you still want people to be hung over it? With "blatant lying" and "doom speaking" it's really not clear from your comment whether you were talking about yourself or others... Was that something you only wanted for people you disagree with?

with the blatant lying that has happened since to justify the doom speaking and the millions of deaths due to it people should be hung.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom