The Great Global Warming Poll

[aquaman]

You mean they pay PR firms to put out information contrary to those attacking them? Just like any company does?

Let's say that global warming is a hoax (use this as a premise) and that you are an oil company in the sights of political entities for legal targeting and expropriation. What would you do?

People telling the truth have to get their message out too, you know...PR isn't evidence of dishonesty.

This is what I find intriguing about many in Ray Peat forum thinking:

All pharmaceutical studies, research, corporations and FDA employees: "EVIL!"

All Oil studies, research, corporations, and ex-chiefs being appointed to very senior government positions: "Probably just a conspiracy against oil companies and global warming is a hoax, and no possible conflict of interest with the ex CEOs being appointed to very senior government jobs!"

 

[Kyle M]

This is what I find intriguing about many in Ray Peat forum thinking:

All pharmaceutical studies, research, corporations and FDA employees: "EVIL!"

All Oil studies, research, corporations, and ex-chiefs being appointed to very senior government positions: "Probably just a conspiracy against oil companies and global warming is a hoax, and no possible conflict of interest with the ex CEOs being appointed to very senior government jobs!"

That characterization really has nothing to do with what you quoted, or anything I've ever written on here. I only take umbrage to the assertion that if a corporation or individual engages in PR, that means they are automatically liars.

 

[Travis]

I think both points of view have a degree of truth. The IPCC probably tweaks their mathematical models in a way that's designed to be alarmist; all organizations seem to tend towards self-preservation. More dire predictions⟹more ears perk-up⟹more funding⟹more job security⟹more public adoration.

But another popular stance takes it to the extreme. Some people say that the entire concept of global warming is about as scientific as phlogistons. But even the evidence commonly used to support this—The Rancourt Papers—does predict a modest change with increasing carbon dioxide.

Modeling atmospheric thermodynamics and photochemistry is so complicated that you can probably convincingly create legitimate models to predict temperature increases anywhere from 1–5°C.

Since behind-the-scenes special interests are often so hard to prove, it probably becomes necessary to seriously analyze the logic behind the calculations themselves. And since oil companies would be expected to mitigate the effects of global warming, whether true or not, this in itself means nothing. It only matters insomuch as to help foster a critical point of view towards every global warming claim, whether alarmist or denialist.

 

[michael94]

This is what I find intriguing about many in Ray Peat forum thinking:

All pharmaceutical studies, research, corporations and FDA employees: "EVIL!"

All Oil studies, research, corporations, and ex-chiefs being appointed to very senior government positions: "Probably just a conspiracy against oil companies and global warming is a hoax, and no possible conflict of interest with the ex CEOs being appointed to very senior government jobs!"

It is just a way to corrupt environmentalism into something ugly. Also want to know something funny... ok I'll tell you....
Fossil fuels don't exist. Petroleum products and "crude oil" come from plants it does not bubble out of the ground.

 

[Queequeg]

This is what I find intriguing about many in Ray Peat forum thinking:

All pharmaceutical studies, research, corporations and FDA employees: "EVIL!"

All Oil studies, research, corporations, and ex-chiefs being appointed to very senior government positions: "Probably just a conspiracy against oil companies and global warming is a hoax, and no possible conflict of interest with the ex CEOs being appointed to very senior government jobs!"

The truth is funny that way. It doesn't always follow simple rules like big money must always be lying and the government must always be telling the truth. I would actually argue that historically the Government has lied much more than any corporation. Governments dont have to worry about liability.

I, and probably most others, have made up our mind on global warming by looking at the evidence both for and the evidence against and then decided who is lying and who is telling the truth. I used to be a hardcore believer but then I took a chance and started reading and listening to what the skeptics were saying. Their arguments are much more persuasive than anything I have read from the IPCC. For the most part they are not funded by anyone. They are mostly tenured professors who are about to retire and can therefore say what they want.

Also you may have missed this earlier post but the oil companies no longer oppose global warming. They are making far too much money selling natural gas to utilities to shut down the gravy train.
Why Big Oil wants Trump to stay in Paris climate agreement

 

[aquaman]

What do you guys think about Ray's quote:

"That was very close to the way the climate change seems to be leading us, to ashes and money."

Huge wildfires across California, Oregon, Washington, Montana, BC and two "100-year" Hurricanes making landfall in the US in the course of a week, 40 million displaced in south asia from flooding last week. These extreme occurrences have no man-made influences? And one person posts "well it cold in winter near me, so global warming must be false". Ha!

EDIT: one thing to consider, are you guys only posting about CO2? And also, do people accept there is a difference between climate change and global warming: I mean, climates can change without there needing to be "global warming"?

2nd Edit: @Queequeg i see you had this discussion on a previous post. I've only scanned, but your posting seems focused only on CO2 and global warming. Why? The relevance is not so much about the minutiae, but of the long term economic, social and political future of the human species being affected by changing weather conditions. You seem to accept that man causes effects on the climate: if those effects cause regular events of 100s of billions of dollars of damage, damage to the means of production (such as power stations), environmental damage eg nuclear reactors, what's the discussion about?

Ray's writings on this are very clear, see this post link, it contains amazing quotes from generative energy: What Do You Think About Climate Change?

I'll just grab one from that long post:

Every region and industry seems to have people who feel that their present jobs are more important than the very ecosystem which is the foundation for their present "har-vesting" job. This pathological sort of perception resembles the type of autism in which the victim devours part of his own body, unless restrained.

 

[Travis]

Nice Peat quote! That is brilliant.

What got me hooked on reading Ray Peat articles about ten years ago was not so much the topics themselves, but the way he writes. I like how he throws "unless restrained" at the end.

 

[Queequeg]

What do you guys think about Ray's quote:

"That was very close to the way the climate change seems to be leading us, to ashes and money."

Huge wildfires across California, Oregon, Washington, Montana, BC and two "100-year" Hurricanes making landfall in the US in the course of a week, 40 million displaced in south asia from flooding last week. These extreme occurrences have no man-made influences? And one person posts "well it cold in winter near me, so global warming must be false". Ha!

EDIT: one thing to consider, are you guys only posting about CO2? And also, do people accept there is a difference between climate change and global warming: I mean, climates can change without there needing to be "global warming"?

2nd Edit: @Queequeg i see you had this discussion on a previous post. I've only scanned, but your posting seems focused only on CO2 and global warming. Why? The relevance is not so much about the minutiae, but of the long term economic, social and political future of the human species being affected by changing weather conditions. You seem to accept that man causes effects on the climate: if those effects cause regular events of 100s of billions of dollars of damage, damage to the means of production (such as power stations), environmental damage eg nuclear reactors, what's the discussion about?

Ray's writings on this are very clear, see this post link, it contains amazing quotes from generative energy: What Do You Think About Climate Change?

I'll just grab one from that long post:

I like the RP quote as well but that has nothing to do with global warming. Ray actually doesn’t believe in anthropogenic climate change but rather thinks it is driven mainly by changes in solar output. They did two KMUD episodes on it and he was very clear. These are discussed in that thread you linked to:
"I think the general trend of the warming currently, the last 100 years or so is being driven by the sun’s normal cycle as far as it can be determined. There are not only the 11 year cycles but probably much larger cycles and several astronomers have been showing evidence that the solar constant has been increasing in recent decades enough to fully account for the planetary warming as far as that has been established." Ray Peat
Minute 34. KMUD: 1-15-16 Water Quality, Atmospheric CO2, And Climate Change

I too don’t accept that man is causing global warming so I am not sure about why you are assuming that I accept anything that Man is doing to the climate. I actually think it is quite egocentric of us to think we can actually control the climate. That of course doesn’t mean that I am not concerned with our polluting the environment with real toxins or deforesting the landscape, but these are completely different issues. For the record the number and intensity of storms have decreased over the last ten years; the two recent storms are not proof of anything.

Others have also asked why only focus on CO2 and I would answer that I too wish we didn’t have to. CO2 is a red herring; as increased CO2 levels will only benefit the earth through greater plant growth and therefore food production for all animals, humans included. The only reason CO2 is of issue is that the Globalists are using it as a Trojan Horse to bring in world government, as well as accomplish many other objectives you probably would not agree with. Any tax on carbon would be devastating to the poorest people they claim to want to help as their cost of living would skyrocket.

Here is a good presentation by a real climate scientist, Dr Timothy Ball. He is not funded by anyone and actually has lost all chances at any grant funding due to his politically incorrect views:

 

[aquaman]

Ray actually doesn’t believe in anthropogenic climate change but rather thinks it is driven mainly by changes in solar output.

I too don’t accept that man is causing global warming so I am not sure about why you are assuming that I accept anything that Man is doing to the climate. I actually think it is quite egocentric of us to think we can actually control the climate.

Are you purposefully changing the context of his quote or just through not thinking it through? You must have done this on purpose because the other thread clearly states Peat's views.

His quote is in relation to global warming being caused by CO2. Then you shift it to say he "doesn't believe in anthropogenic climate change". The two are separate issues. And he clearly does in anthropogenic climate change:

Everyone who listens to weather reports on television and radio should be aware that the forests, and their destruction, are affecting their weather.

Deforestation of the Pacific Coast is moving from south to north. The areas that are immediately "downwind" from the treeless coast are the places that will feel the earliest effects on their weather. California and Nevada are now facing their fourth consecutive drought, and have just experienced the driest December in history. Farmers have been warned to ex-pect a 20% cut in water deliveries this summer. The decreased production of food is likely to cost the region several billion dollars this year, and there is no reason to believe that the old weather patterns will return, without the forests.

The main debate about climate change is that we should limit the amount of extracted resources being used, whether that's oil, old forests etc:

I think we have to start seeing jobs in resource-extraction as an index of poverty, to the extent that they degrade the biosphere. A definition of wealth must consider both quantity and quality of production. Environmentalists and ecologists have to do some intelligent thinking about economics, so they can help the people in power to think more realistically

 

[jaa]

I think most scientists know the truth but aren't telling us, kind of like Harvard still recommending PUFAs.

And thus you can convince yourself it's rational to believe whatever your whims might tell you.

 

[schultz]

What got me hooked on reading Ray Peat articles about ten years ago was not so much the topics themselves, but the way he writes. I like how he throws "unless restrained" at the end.

Yes I love Ray's writing!

Ray's writings on this are very clear, see this post link, it contains amazing quotes from generative energy

Those are great quotes. One problem that I have with the "CO2 is the devil" trend that is happening now is that it takes energy and focus away from more important issues like the ones Ray is discussing in those quotes. It focuses so much on CO2 that the public thinks that anything that produces less CO2 is automatically better, like nuclear energy (which I happen to believe is far more dangerous than CO2). Whenever I mention nuclear to people in conversation they say "Well actually nuclear energy is much greener and safer, blah blah blah" Personally I feel like governments have a tendency to cover up the actual damage nuclear plants have and/or can cause. I feel like the CO2 demonization actually takes focus away from other really important environmental concerns and this will actually lead people to believe nuclear energy is safer. It may also help other industries get away with terrible things as long as they are being "green" which apparently just means keeping CO2 low now.

At least CO2 causes plants to grow better. No one is using nuclear waste as fertilizer.

one thing to consider, are you guys only posting about CO2?

I think @Queequeg makes a good point about CO2 being a red herring. It's distracting people against more important issues. My issue is with people thinking CO2 is the ultimate destruction of the planet. The general public doesn't know anything about CO2 and the media don't mention the possible benefits of CO2. I was discussing CO2 with somebody the other day and they were very against CO2. When I mentioned that it can cause plants to grow faster they didn't believe me... It's almost like they think "Well, everyone says it's bad so it has to be"

I like when Kim Greenhouse asked Ray about CO2 and he gave the longest answer of all time...

KIM GREENHOUSE: Would you talk a little bit about CO2 because since 2009 and since the EPA declared war on (CO2) carbon dioxide and since the whole global warming thing and anything connected to climate changing, people are scared to death of CO2. And I just realized in doing an interview with Dr Mark Sircus that oxygen isn’t everything in fact, if you don't have enough CO2, you’re not going to be well. There is a lot of confusion about this. Explain what CO2 is and what does CO2 have to do with aging and heath?

RAY PEAT: About 60 years ago, some people working with microorganisms did a survey and found that although some bacteria, protozoa and so on can survive without oxygen like in deep sea vents, there are organisms that totally live without oxygen and use sulfuric acid as their oxidant for example. These experimenters tested many different types of organism and even those which can live without oxygen can’t live without CO2, so it really should be considered the basic material of life, not oxygen. The purpose of oxygen from that point of view is to make CO2, and if you consider it in the context of Gilbert Ling’s cell structure, with the protein itself is a weak acid and the weak acid is electrically charged with a negative charge which attracts positive ions so that it spontaneously binds things like potassium, sodium, magnesium and calcium. But if you adjust the composition as a whole, the whole colloid or coacervate of the cell, the water softener prefers to bind calcium over sodium, but if you put a very high concentration of salt through your water softener, you can wash out the calcium and then it will extract calcium from your hard water because of its chemical nature and the acidic group of the right size will prefer one ion over the other. And CO2 is one of the factors that cause our proteins to prefer potassium over sodium. At the same time that the cell is regulating its salt and ion balance by having the right amount of CO2, it’s producing a steady stream of CO2 flowing out of the cell into the blood and as it leaves the mitochondrion, it reacts with water forming carbonic acid. And the carbonic acid has a negative charge so as it flows out of the cell, it drags along positive ions with it in this case, calcium and sodium are constantly flowing out of the cell just because of the flow of CO2 and, as we exhale that carbonic acid in the blood, is constantly changing back into CO2 – which leaves in the lungs and that leaves these calcium and sodium ions stranded in the blood as the C02 leaves them – that accounts for the blood having a more alkaline test pH equivalent than the inside of the cell. Then the kidneys finish keeping the balance again, by adjusting the change between C02 and carbonic acid allowing the kidneys to select in one direction or the other these ions. One of the functions of C02 is to regulate the acidity of tissues and prevent the uptake of too much water and to keep the energy intake going. Shock is a typical extreme situation, in which cells become unable to make energy and take up too much water so that for example, your capillaries take up water and can swell shut. Cells become so fat they close the aperture. Arterioles get swollen so that blood hardly passes through them. The mechanisms obviously relate to the known mechanisms of shock except that the shock industry is committed to the idea that something fails in the circulatory system as a primary event but not necessarily the closure. Simply the heart stops pumping enough maybe because the blood vessels have relaxed too much and can’t return the blood but they neglect the fine structure of what’s really happening?In the early part of the century, Yandell Henderson, a Yale professor, became interested in CO2 physiology as a regulator of oxygen metabolism. Shock at that time was being seen in relation to the nervous system as something that can turn off or turn on energy production of cells all through the body, but he was simply looking at what happens with more or less CO2. And in one of his studies published in 1910, and another one in 1911, on what happens to the circulation in the absence of CO2, he was one of the first people to see that CO2 relaxes the arterioles and allows blood to flow freely through the body but if you turn off the energy production and stop producing CO2, then you have less relaxed blood vessels, the heart has a harder job pumping. So he was looking at the feature of shock that fails to return blood to the heart and fails to pump it. The First World War – all of that research relating to the chemistry of metabolism and how it relates to the function of arteries, capillaries and veins and the heart – all of that was displaced by a simple mechanical failure of the blood to pump without explanation of the mechanism behind it and that elimination of CO2 metabolism became institutionalized as hospitals simplified things by supplying oxygen in an emergency where Yandell Henderson showed that you could cause quicker recovery of oxygenation by adding 8 or 10% of CO2 to your oxygen. The whole idea of physiology changed largely as a result of the war research. At the time of the Second World War a Russian researcher, who was looking at the appearance of high metabolizing animals in the world – how the expensive energy producing brain of humans could evolve, what the factors in the environment are that are needed to maintain and develop a brain – he saw that the environmental CO2 is an essential factor for good brain function and he predicted that the natural development of the planet’s ecosystems would be to increase the metabolic rate, increase the brain size of populations, and do it by the interaction of increasing CO2, stimulating O2 metabolism and stabilizing the big brain. And in the history of the deposition, the carboniferous age of fossils, for example, at that time when evolution advanced so rapidly the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was many times higher than at present, so he predicted that the earth would go through other phases of greatly increased atmospheric CO2, that would increase the whole vitality of life on the planet. Vernadsky died around the end of the war in 1945 or 46 but around 1970 a Russian researcher looking at the length, birth weight and head size of babies born over a period of decades saw that around the world the head size had been increasing in correspondence to the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, seeming to validate the prediction of Vernadsky made 25 years earlier.

KIM GREENHOUSE: What does that mean?

RAY PEAT: That we don't have to worry about increasing the atmosphere because it’s stimulating life at all levels.

 

[Queequeg]

Are you purposefully changing the context of his quote or just through not thinking it through? You must have done this on purpose because the other thread clearly states Peat's views.

His quote is in relation to global warming being caused by CO2. Then you shift it to say he "doesn't believe in anthropogenic climate change". The two are separate issues. And he clearly does in anthropogenic climate change:

The main debate about climate change is that we should limit the amount of extracted resources being used, whether that's oil, old forests etc:

You really shouldn't ascribe such negative motives to others, especially when it seems you are a bit confused on Ray's views in particular and the climate change debate in general. When people use the term anthropogenic climate change they are speaking about man-made CO2 and its supposed effects on the global climate. When Ray is speaking of deforestation and its effects on the climate he is talking about localized effects on the regional climate. But to be clear Ray does not believe that man made CO2 will have a negative effect on the climate.

 

[Travis]

But to be clear Ray does not believe that man made CO2 will have a negative effect on the climate.

Does he think that it will raise the mean global temperature?

 

[Queequeg]

Does he think that it will raise the mean global temperature?

he says that all of the temperature rise in the last 100 years can be accounted for by solar output so that doesn't leave much room for CO2 to do anything. I have the quote above

 

[aquaman]

You really shouldn't ascribe such negative motives to others, especially when it seems you are a bit confused on Ray's views in particular and the climate change debate in general. When people use the term anthropogenic climate change they are speaking about man-made CO2 and its supposed effects on the global climate. When Ray is speaking of deforestation and its effects on the climate he is talking about localized effects on the regional climate. But to be clear Ray does not believe that man made CO2 will have a negative effect on the climate.

Anthropogenic simply means man-made. I don't know why you would assume this only refers to CO2. All human activity that impacts the climate falls within the term.

 

[x-ray peat]

And thus you can convince yourself it's rational to believe whatever your whims might tell you.

I always find it interesting that while the skeptics typically base their arguments on the science, the believers initial reaction is always a resort to ad hominems.

 

[jaa]

I always find it interesting that while the skeptics typically base their arguments on the science, the believers initial reaction is always a resort to ad hominems.

It's not an ad hominen if it's making fun of your line of reasoning. My comment was a direct critique of yours. I'm not surprised you're trying to duck behind the ad hominem shield though.

 

[x-ray peat]

It's not an ad hominen if it's making fun of your line of reasoning. My comment was a direct critique of yours. I'm not surprised you're trying to duck behind the ad hominem shield though.

Saying that " [you] believe whatever your whims might tell you" is basically the same thing as calling someone an idiot. So yes let's keep the conversation focused on the science and not on how our individual thought processes may or may not work. With that said I am not sure you quite understood my post as your comment was quite the non-sequitur. I didn't propose any line of reasoning but rather stated my opinion on the level of dishonesty in science. I think the vast majority of people in this forum would agree with that.

" I think most scientists know the truth but aren't telling us, kind of like Harvard still recommending PUFAs."

As for my line of reasoning for not buying into the Global Warming hysteria, it is all evidence based and has nothing to do with my whims.

 

[jaa]

Saying that " [you] believe whatever your whims might tell you" is basically the same thing as calling someone an idiot.

I said that line of reasoning (writing off scientists for your own non-expert opinion) can allow you to believe anything you want. It's a critique of your reasoning.

I didn't propose any line of reasoning but rather stated my opinion on the level of dishonesty in science. I think the vast majority of people in this forum would agree with that.

And I think anyone who agrees with you on that is just as wrong headed on that point as you are. I'll take the consensus of scientific belief over the consensus opinion of a random internet forum any day.

 

[x-ray peat]

I said that line of reasoning (writing off scientists for your own non-expert opinion) can allow you to believe anything you want. It's a critique of your reasoning.
And I think anyone who agrees with you on that is just as wrong headed on that point as you are. I'll take the consensus of scientific belief over the consensus opinion of a random internet forum any day.

You are making an incorrect assumption about how many of us come to our conclusions. We are not substituting our "non-expert opinion" for that of scientists but rather weighing the multitude of opinions from many scientists and deciding who is making the better argument based on the facts. What you are proposing is that we stop thinking for ourselves and blindly follow a consensus of controlled propagandists. If you really believe that then why are you listening to anything Ray has to say, as most of what he recommends is refuted by the majority of the experts, including his denial of man made global warming.