Help! Climate denying father
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-12-2016, 07:12 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Here's the thing, all the governments of the world and all the scientists of the world are not working together in some grand conspiracy to raise your taxes.

When governments respond to virus outbreaks are they trying to raise your taxes ?
When governments respond to help victims of earthquakes, hurricanes, wild fires, are they doing it to raise your taxes ?

If you look at a chart of the natural rise & fall for CO2 before the industrial age, you see a very steady chart of highs & lows that date back thousands of years.

[Image: global_climate_change_2_20090707_1627693772.jpg]


This isn't some hoax the world is playing on everyone to raise your fucking taxes.
This is serious and has dire consequences for all life on our planet.

Governments don't need your money to address this problem.
They just need companies to stop polluting the air with greenhouse gases and for our energy sectors to stop burning fossil fuels in order to provide electricity.

We also need to curb our carbon footprint, by changing the type of vehicles we drive.

No one is trying to con you out of anything.
We are just trying to explain to you the reality our planet is facing.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Rahn127's post
10-12-2016, 10:36 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Aliza,
If I had not taken typing in 11th grade, this would have been much shorter.

With me, it has a lot to do with points of reference. I was there in the 1970s when cancer science attempted to scare me about saccharine. I was also there when nutrition science, and government, attempted to scare me about saturated animal fat. I am still shaking in my boots after 60 years, ignoring thousands of peer reviewed articles from all these PhDs and MDs. Thousands!

My father, a private sector mathematician with top secret security clearance (evil weapons systems), at the age of 27, was asked to do a classified statistical study for the United States Army. His clearance might have been the main reason, but I also suspect that he knew what he was doing.

Now, a scientist, any scientist, doing complex mathematics will hunt down the likes of my father to have their work reviewed. A propagandist, theologian or philosopher, on the other hand, will avoid him like the plague.

Does this ring any bells at all? When I first heard that a private sector mathematician was having difficulty obtaining raw data from the climate science community, I immediately concluded fraud, and it was not on the part of the mathematician. That was my only conclusion. I did not qualify it in any way. This was many years ago, and that conclusion has not changed.

I can just imagine how my father would be viewed if he had lived long enough to check the mathematics and statistics coming out of the nutrition and climate communities.

When I and my advisor at the National Cancer Institute had trouble deriving an equation for some chemical reactions, he immediately sent our raw data to a physical chemistry colleague at Yale. He sent all the data. Not part of it. Nothing massaged.

With my own analytical lab, for 22 years now, I send my customers all raw data, including all the ugly drifting and background noise. I use no software to interpret data, smooth out the ugliness or convert that data to pretty bar graphs and pie charts they can use in their lab meetings. And even if I did, they would still receive all that ugly stuff at the same time. That raw, ugly stuff is the only real proof that their sample was analyzed and data collected. For some reason, without all the pretty pictures, they come back.

I might add that both grandfathers (born 1888 and 1897) were geologists, one Precambrian. I wonder how they would react to the view that a mammalian species living on Earth’s surface is now considered a major variable in the climate equation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2016, 10:56 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(10-12-2016 10:36 AM)Walter Wrote:  Aliza,
If I had not taken typing in 11th grade, this would have been much shorter.

With me, it has a lot to do with points of reference. I was there in the 1970s when cancer science attempted to scare me about saccharine. I was also there when nutrition science, and government, attempted to scare me about saturated animal fat. I am still shaking in my boots after 60 years, ignoring thousands of peer reviewed articles from all these PhDs and MDs. Thousands!

My father, a private sector mathematician with top secret security clearance (evil weapons systems), at the age of 27, was asked to do a classified statistical study for the United States Army. His clearance might have been the main reason, but I also suspect that he knew what he was doing.

Now, a scientist, any scientist, doing complex mathematics will hunt down the likes of my father to have their work reviewed. A propagandist, theologian or philosopher, on the other hand, will avoid him like the plague.

Does this ring any bells at all? When I first heard that a private sector mathematician was having difficulty obtaining raw data from the climate science community, I immediately concluded fraud, and it was not on the part of the mathematician. That was my only conclusion. I did not qualify it in any way. This was many years ago, and that conclusion has not changed.

I can just imagine how my father would be viewed if he had lived long enough to check the mathematics and statistics coming out of the nutrition and climate communities.

When I and my advisor at the National Cancer Institute had trouble deriving an equation for some chemical reactions, he immediately sent our raw data to a physical chemistry colleague at Yale. He sent all the data. Not part of it. Nothing massaged.

With my own analytical lab, for 22 years now, I send my customers all raw data, including all the ugly drifting and background noise. I use no software to interpret data, smooth out the ugliness or convert that data to pretty bar graphs and pie charts they can use in their lab meetings. And even if I did, they would still receive all that ugly stuff at the same time. That raw, ugly stuff is the only real proof that their sample was analyzed and data collected. For some reason, without all the pretty pictures, they come back.

I might add that both grandfathers (born 1888 and 1897) were geologists, one Precambrian. I wonder how they would react to the view that a mammalian species living on Earth’s surface is now considered a major variable in the climate equation.

The raw data is abundant and widely available. Many journals now have online repositories for it but you can download raw data directly from sources like NASA too. The fact that scientists won't take time out of their day to send a denialist a text document with all of their data isn't evidence of fraud in the slightest.

Also, how would two older geologists view the possibility that humans are influencing climate? Well, the old guard of geologists also rejected plate tectonics, highlighting why it's irrelevant. What matters is what the data and the scientists today are showing. I'm a geologist and I'm aware of the role all life plays in the global carbon cycle and what role the global carbon cycle plays in climate.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
11-12-2016, 08:48 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
What is "cancer science"?

Is it a field? Do you mean "oncology", as in the practice of medicine, or some other subset of medical research?

Do you mean those people who look into cause-and-effect in medical studies, who thought they saw a link between saccharine and cancer outcomes? Do you mean that sometimes people make poor study conclusions that are later contradicted by future studies? What does that have to do with anything, and why in the world would you even suggest that it somehow impugns the entire field of climatology?

As TBD pointed out, the data are freely available, and studies are done from many competing organizations-- the reason they have "summits" is so that the members of those competing organizations can come together to compare notes and see if any of them have pieces of the puzzle that others are missing, or might see some unaccounted-for variable that the first team missed.

As for the raw mathematics of it, or what you referred to as a "statistical study"... what do you think climate modeling is, in the first place?

I'm honestly not remotely sure what you're even trying to imply with the bits about government agencies and animal fat/saccharine "scares". I read it as "well sometimes science messes up, especially back in the 1970s with government agencies handling science badly, so we should distrust all of the scientific community, today", and I'm simply appalled that a person capable of tying their shoes could come to such an astoundingly stupid conclusion. Sorry to make it personal, but to me you're just another person taken in by propaganda that seeks to muddy the waters and keep just enough people unwilling to demand action by those (idiotic, admittedly) governmental agencies that are supposed to be on the ball about such things.

Distrust the EPA or the FDA? Sure. But not the scientific community at large.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
11-12-2016, 10:59 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
I'd like to see a science denier arrive at a hospital and be turned away.

"Sorry Sir, you were right. All this science in medicine has been one grand fraud to fool the public. There is nothing we can do to help you."

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
11-12-2016, 11:07 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(11-12-2016 10:59 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  I'd like to see a science denier arrive at a hospital and be turned away.

"Sorry Sir, you were right. All this science in medicine has been one grand fraud to fool the public. There is nothing we can do to help you."

Nah. Just save all the science-based medicine and treat 'em Old School Style:

[Image: video-undefined-22A85D7B00000578-67_636x358.jpg]

"Sanitize for germs?!? Don't worry, kid, germs are just a theory!"

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
31-12-2016, 05:39 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
This one's pretty cool. With enough evidence, even skepticism will thaw.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
01-01-2017, 09:24 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
For the 47 years I have lived in chemistry labs (undergraduate, graduate, federal government, private sector, private research institute, medical school and my own lab), I have worked with scientists from undergraduate biology and chemistry majors to members of the National Academy of Sciences. I have observed everything from science fraud to major discoveries. I know, I know. This background is completely irrelevant to a community of non-believers.

Please watch Steven Johnson’s How We Got to Now on PBS. I would use it if teaching elementary school science. It is a great history of scientists, engineers and tinkerers who have made our standard of living what it is today.

Some great reading is Denise Minger’s (she loves statistics and is a fan of McIntyre) critique of T. Colin Campbell’s The China Study. She used the same data to come to completely different conclusions. How in Hell did that happen? I suspect, if alive today, my father, another private sector mathematician, would be able to supply the answer. Warning: Her critique and associated links might be longer than the Holy Bible, so plan on spending more than a few days reading her work. Yes, it is highly relevant to this little debate about climate.

https://deniseminger.com/the-china-study/


I had back surgery in 1981 and hernia repairs in 2001 and last year. All three were done by highly qualified surgeons. My wife is a nurse practitioner who shares my skepticism of the fear mongering coming from the climate and nutrition science communities. Please do not, under any circumstances, let her touch you. Let’s turn things around and instead of a questionnaire for incoming patients like me, we could write one up for emergency and operating room staff about their personal take on government fear mongering about fat and carbon dioxide. And we could add a question about their take on Jesus, which would automatically disqualify my wife (damn Catholics).

It is the science and medical communities in general which have induced fear about saturated animal fat and cholesterol and followed that fear mongering with a recommendation that we all shove statins in our mouths to keep us alive. These communities, along with major food and pharmaceutical corporations, have done such a super job of promoting good science, of course without a trace of religion or philosophy. The climate community has simply carried on this great tradition of answering questions about nature.

What we should do, without question, is to trust and applaud the Hansens, Manns and Campbells of the world. It is the perfect, common sense, logical, objective and scientific recommendation coming from a community of atheists and skeptics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2017, 07:10 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Walter, I don't mean any disrespect, but you need to read the comments on her blog again. She may be a smart amateur, but I strongly suspect that her work would not stand up at the level of peer-reviewed scrutiny, as the actual expert whom she is criticizing points out to her, in his replies.

Also, I only see the "China study" stuff, where she criticizes nutrition science. So I have two questions:

1) Why should I "trust and applaud" people like her, when they have not attempted to do science (including peer review) but have only chosen to lob amateur tomatoes at the body of scientific information found in professional journals-- journals which amateurs are welcome to publish, if their material withstands the accepted standards of scientific rigor?

2) What does that have to do with the environment or those who study it? (This question is particularly important since your "shove statins" comment seems to imply that the pharmaceutical companies are driving the "animal fat is bad for you" research, which implies that you still think your earlier comments about the motives of climate scientists are valid... but they're utter bullshit, as was pointed out to you repeatedly.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
03-01-2017, 07:12 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Combustion of Fossil Fuels
The combustion of all fossil fuels follows a very similar reaction:

Fuel (any hydrocarbon source) plus oxygen yields
carbon dioxide and water and energy.


A simple combustion reaction is given for methane. The combustion of methane means that it is possible to burn it. Chemically, this combustion process consists of a reaction between methane and oxygen in the air. When this reaction takes place, the result is carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H2O), and a great deal of energy. The following reaction represents the combustion of methane:


CH4[g] + 2 O2[g] -> CO2[g] + 2 H2O[g] + energy

Are there any climate science deniers who would like to dispute the chemistry of this reaction ?

Our cars, our factories, our power plants that burn coal produce CO2 that all ADDS to the CO2 naturally found in our atmosphere.

Would you care to dispute that ?

Do you want to dispute the observed temperature readings from around the world ?

Do you want to dispute the observed concentration of CO2 from around the world ?

You can only bury your head in the sand so long.
You either come up for air or you die.

But in this case, your denial of science costs other people their lives.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: