Scientists Finally Admit Climate Models Are Failing To Predict Global Warming

[tara]

but i do find it confusing that you should reject the scientific consesus in regards to ray peat while trusting the scientific consensus in regards to man's involvement in climate change.

I don't reject the general scientific consensus wrt Ray Peat. I am sceptical about some parts of the medical consensus in some areas, because my current assessment is that in some areas Peat is paying more attention to the science. I reject the sales pitches of pharmaceutical companies. There are many areas where Peat agrees with the medical and scientific consensus' too. Where do you think Peat gets his ideas from? Makes them all up out of thin air? I think he bases them on the science that has been done by himself and others, along with his own experiments and observations of the effects of various tactics.

 

[tara]

Yes, nation states have done a wonderful job solving humanity's problems, right?

I didn't say they always have, I said there are no other adequate mechanisms. Some of the destruction caused by nation states is appalling. But there are aspects of state-coordinated infrastructure, services, and protection of people and environment, that I value.

How would you propose to get your country to transition in to a post-fossil-fuel economy in a way that can work for everyone?
Where I am, I think that will require changes to state-level policy.

 

[burtlancast]

There are many areas where Peat agrees with the medical and scientific consensus' too.

This isn't what Ray wrote :

" The history of conventional medicine is mainly a history of unscientific and dangerous practices. Medical alternatives were introduced by conscientious workers to avoid the dangers of conventional medicine."

Ray's point is medicine is and has always been unscientific and dangerous.

To the extreme that it has now invaded too alternative medicine :

"But alternative approaches to medicine, especially nutritional therapies, have come to be influenced or even dominated by the same giant industries that control conventional medicine."

 

[narouz]

Ray's point is medicine is and has always been unscientific and dangerous.

This does not refute tara's (good) point that "there are many areas where Peat agrees with the medical and scientific consensus."

When you read Peat's many articles and listen to his interviews (and I know you do, burt)
it is abundantly clear that he references tons of scientific studies.
Peat doesn't do all of his own original experimentation.
Very little of it.
He stands upon the shoulders of a scientific edifice and history which,
while flawed and corrupted in part,
has allowed him to derive and create the insights we know him for.

There's a kind of anti-establishment dogma very loudly present on this forum.
The idea is that, if there is an establishment and an establishment positon, it is all wrong,
Simple!
We can see it in this self-congratulatory climate denial conversation.
We can see it in the Trump threads where,
simply and sheerly by virtue of being anti-establishment,
he has been hoist aloft as Truth Bearer,
onto the shoulders of the loud and proud libertarian/conspiracy theorist cohort here.
It is really a variety of Know Nothingism.

These posturings are based upon a misunderstanding of Peat.
As I say, it is just a simplistic dogma of anti-ism
from which it is not science that emerges,
but rather just the political bents of the poseurs
flying under the false flag of science or (in the case of Trump) patriotism.
Mavericks!

 

[burtlancast]

This does not refute tara's (good) point that "there are many areas where Peat agrees with the medical and scientific consensus."

In my humble opinion, the sentence Tara should have posted is:

"There are many areas where Peat agrees with the medical and scientific consensus, even though he disagrees with the overwhelming majority of them."

That's because it's the strict reality.

When you read Peat's many articles and listen to his interviews (and I know you do, burt)
it is abundantly clear that he references tons of scientific studies.
Peat doesn't do all of his own original experimentation.
Very little of it.
He stands upon the shoulders of a scientific edifice and history which,
while flawed and corrupted in part,
has allowed him to derive and create the insights we know him for.

In the present industry-dominated academic situation, stumbling across the truth is like discovering a needle in a haystack. And those scientists attempting to research and publish honestly get swiftly identified and taken out.

To serve as an example to others . Just read what Gilbert Ling has to say about this.

Consider:
- for every truthful scientific article published, there's hundreds on the same subject trying to send you adrift.
- Ray often needs to seek foreign or/and old studies to prove his points, as the thousands of industry-sponsored ones are of no use to him. And even then, those useful truthful facts get often buried among a mountain of junk data, and inside an article with a misleading title.

There's a kind of anti-establishment dogma very loudly present on this forum.
The idea is that, if there is an establishment and an establishment positon, it is all wrong,
Simple!
We can see it in this self-congratulatory climate denial conversation.
It is really a variety of Know Nothingism.

How poetic !
I really envy your prose, Narouz.

If you're wondering why we're so far anti-establishment, here's an extract from a recent transcript job ( Steiner Schools And Education).

Enjoy ! ( i know you will)

I think the State can set the curriculum to a great extent even with home schooling. The federal government approves the agencies that accredit high schools, and colleges, and universities. And so, there are private accrediting agencies which really are responsible to no one. They are kind of an abstract authority that the citizens can’t affect directly. The government approves them because they meet the government’s ideological standards, apparently. And the state bureaucracies are setup so that no school can grant degrees, or credits, or transcripts if they don’t conform to those accrediting agencies. So really the power to grant a transcript or a degree is pretty much a matter of mind control (unless people realize that there is reality and then there’s the official curriculum (chuckles)). My experience in grade school and high school was just not to pay too much attention to them. In high school, some of our teachers were openly fascists and Hitler worshipers. Racists and such. So it was just a matter of getting through it without having to interact too much with them.

These posturings are based upon a misunderstanding of Peat.

Perhaps.

But have you ever considered an ulterior, hidden and highly motivating factor for this posturing of ours ?

"Gotcha Narouz right where we want cha. Like putty in our hands! "

 

[goodandevil]

Of course. By all means apply scepticism. Acquiring realistic views requires more than just deciding to trust

Which of these looks more like Peat's approach?:
1. Says "They are mainstream scientists - everything they say must be 180 deg backwards. So I'm going to disbelieve everything any of them say and instead accept all the (contradictory) arguments of the alternative medicine sector, new age crystal fairies, fossil fuel industry and flat earthers. Besides, Mr Z is a politician/pahrmaceutical industry representative, and I don't trust politicians or pharmaceutical reps, so y must be false. And Mr W says Mr Z is wrong, so I will believe everything Mr W says."

I always distrust the media. They are not trustworthy. I question every word they say. Why you don't is beyond me. Additonally, everything contemporary medical science contends IS opposite the contentions of Ray. Estrogen is good, sat fat bad, cholesterol bad, fructose bad, sunlight bad, pufa good, radiation for cancer .. it goes on and on, it would take pages just to name the opposites.

2. Reads a great many papers written by scientists. Rejects flawed methods, absent evidence, and illogical/unfounded conclusions, and he follows the money and other motivations.
Looks for what evidence there actually is in the studies published, and draws logical conclusions and sometimes tentative but coherent hypotheses after reading a large number of related papers. Presents his views and his evidence for them.

Again, following the money leads us straight to the rulers, to those currently in power. Yet, as I've said before, while I don't doubt the Earth is warming or cooling, as it always has and always will cycle, I seriously doubt any contribution of mankind to this natural change. Given the vast amounts of CO2 in coral, and in the ocean, and for the reasons previously mentioned regarding CO2 chemistry and equlibria. I assert that CO2 levels are rising from the decreased solubility of CO2 in warner seawater, but that man has nothing to do with it. Cherry pick your information if you like, but I do not trust anything coming from the media, and always question why they're telling me. "Austerity" was word of the year 2010, if you can't see the media-money trail leading to those living exceedingly well and the rest of us who are forced to live "austerely", I don't know what else to say.

 

[goodandevil]

I didn't say they always have, I said there are no other adequate mechanisms. Some of the destruction caused by nation states is appalling. But there are aspects of state-coordinated infrastructure, services, and protection of people and environment, that I value.

How would you propose to get your country to transition in to a post-fossil-fuel economy in a way that can work for everyone?
Where I am, I think that will require changes to state-level policy.

Why do we need a post-fossil fuel economy? The fact is, Tara, it doesn't matter what we think about the economy; we are subjects. This notion of the rulers asking of their subjects an opinion is a mere contrivance, a method of dissemination- propganda. They get people so clouded they can't discern what the real situation is: what would be best for the economy? Less taxes, enough wealth to start our own businesses, a severing of useless laws. Let me ask you: if economies have been so great for humanity, if it's ever fulfilled it's promise, where is our better life? I love the internet and information, but i'm physically ill and so many others are also sick in our society, what happened to the promise of industrial medicine? Where IS our better life? We have machines that can do all our work for us, yet we are worked to death in futile and fruitless toil. The truth is we are slaves, kept occupied, and "none less free than those who believe they are" is true. Nobody at that level gives a **** what we think, only what they can get away with and what we'll believe and accept. So we believe nothing.

Economies were supposed to give us more leisure, they were supposed to constantly improve human life. Doesn't that sound a lot like the promise of industrial medicine to you: "we don't have cures now, but we might someday" or "there's nothing you can do now, there will be a cure later"? We're slaves, the only possibikity for a better life, the next step in our evolution, is to have the strength to admit the truth for what it is and to have faith in ourselves and humanity, unfettered by lies, as god's capable creation. And of course to be healthy. The state is opposed to all these things.

The only thing we can do is resist it personally, in our own minds. When we allow power to supply us with issues, we have lost, and our lives are not our own. The highest morality is trusting yourself to name the things that are problems.

 

[Matt1951]

Where IS our better life? We have machines that can do all our work for us, yet we are worked to death in futile and fruitless toil. The truth is we are slaves, kept occupied, and "none less free than those who believe they are" is true. Nobody at that level gives a **** what we think, only what they can get away with and what we'll believe and accept. So we believe nothing.

Economies were supposed to give us more leisure, they were supposed to constantly improve human life. Doesn't that sound a lot like the promise of industrial medicine to you: "we don't have cures now, but we might someday" or "there's nothing you can do now, there will be a cure later"? We're slaves, the only possibikity for a better life, the next step in our evolution, is to have the strength to admit the truth for what it is and to have faith in ourselves and humanity, unfettered by lies, as god's capable creation. And of course to be healthy. The state is opposed to all these things.

So true.

Neoliberalism (modern capitalism) in the US, and many other countries, resembles medieval feudalism. We work for the man doing what he tells us to do, when he tells us to do it. We can be, and many are, discarded like waste at any time. My estimate is that well over 100 million of the 330 million Americans live paycheck to paycheck, working very hard for very low pay, as a lifetime sentence until they die, with no chance of parole.
Yes there are hidden agendas, and the US govt,parts of it, lies all the time. Don't automatically believe anything "they" say. "They" still believe in eugenics, only eugenics based on class, not on race - if you cannot generate money for them, as far as they are concerned, you might as well become soylent green. I have talked to some of the wealthy on a one to one basis, there is NO concern for the welfare of the masses. Only the desire that there should be less of us.

 

[Dagwood]

I don't believe in man-made global warming and it's not because I want to be contrarian or self-congratulatory. I have several reasons why I don't believe in it.

1. Carbon dioxide is essential for plant life. Carbon dioxide is beneficial for life on earth. Now I'm sure there are other toxic substances in auto emissions but not CO2 .

2. There is a lot more CO2 emission from the oceans and volcanoes etc. that make human CO2 emissions from factories and cars inconsequential by comparison.

3. I've heard it said that carbon dioxide increased as a result of warmer temperatures and not the other way around as was being claimed, so those charts were deceptive.

4. Scientists with dissenting views were vilified and not allowed a voice even though the so called "evidence" in favor of global warming was far from conclusive.

5. Emails from the committee on climate change were hacked, revealed a conspiracy and the unscientific nature of their position.

6. There is a large powerful sphere in outer space called the sun which I believe plays a significant part in the temperatures on Earth. Call me crazy, but I believe it might even play a more significant part in Earth temperatures than humans!

7. The substitution of the term global warming for the new term "climate change". The initial propaganda coming from Al Gore and his ilk warned about "global warming" and talked about how the polar ice caps would be completely gone by now and how the oceans would rise and cause massive flooding and how winter would turn to summer etc. Well, since this initial prediction none of that stuff has come to pass. Some places have even had record snow storms. When you comment on how the temperature doesn't seem to have increased they will no longer say it's global warming but "climate change" and that somehow the temperature increasing makes the temperature decrease simultaneously and the reason it is colder is because it's actually getting warmer. Give me a break. Or they will say that they never claimed it would increase the temperature but instead it would alter the Earth's weather in some vague way where there position will constantly and conveniently change to fit the changing circumstances. "No, I didn't mean it would get hotter. I meant it would get cooler. Oh wait, I meant it would get warmer in this area and cooler in this area. And then after that, this area would get warmer and this area would get cooler. You see? Conclusive evidence in mad made global warming." Isn't it convenient that the proponents of the global warming/climate change theory get to be so flexible in their position?

8. Many believe that this whole global warming/climate change thing was brought about so that the government could take control of the energy industry and also to profit from their own energy alternatives. I believe Al Gore was involved with some energy company created to take advantage of the global warming scare.

9. The temperatures of the Earth have fluctuated since the beginning of the Earth. So yes, we have "climate change" but so what? It's normal.

10. None of the predictions have come true. It has been about 10+ years since the initial propaganda. All that bad stuff was supposed to have happened already. I'm still waiting.

 

[narouz]

10. None of the predictions have come true. It has been about 10+ years since the initial propaganda. All that bad stuff was supposed to have happened already. I'm still waiting.

Dagwood...come awwwnn, man!
I won't go through all of them, but just that last one is a humdinger.
It's a huge body of science.
The predictions are just about all manifesting, some worse/faster than expected.
But you've waited 10 whole years, so now you can declare all clear...
Sheesh.

 

[narouz]

"Gotcha Narouz right where we want cha. Like putty in our hands! "

 

[burtlancast]

 

[Kray]

Hi all,

I tried to find a place to insert this article I just found today; this was the closest I could (figure out) find, and a good heading! FEAR IS A LIAR

Take this for what you science-minded people can appreciate, fyi and comments. If I am late to the gate or this is nothing new, please accept my apologies, but it seemed interesting enough to post:

Blog: A word from a toxicologist who defected from the federal junk science army