“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I've always been disappointed that CF is occasionally a nurturing spot for CC denial. I believe that's not so much an agenda as a reflection of the average demographics (age, nationality, economic bracket) of yacht owners here.

I am a poor well educated individual
My vessel cost about the same as the sails on most others sailboats .
I live on it so I pay attention to the weather and weather trends .
And it appears to me that the trend is the same as it was in the late 1930's - early 1940's
The planet had warmed up to that point then went into its normal cooling cycle until the mid 1970's when it went back into its warming cycle a cycle that has now ended and we are going back into a multi decadal cooling phase.

Chart attached to illustrate

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I've always been disappointed that CF is occasionally a nurturing spot for CC denial. I believe that's not so much an agenda as a reflection of the average demographics (age, nationality, economic bracket) of yacht owners here.

I honestly don't see the denial in the same manner as you do. I'd bet a paycheck that you and Ex actually would agree on most things if you sat down in real life. This medium just isn't conducive for this unless you can see past some triggering here.

There are a few people quite enthusiastic with their graphs/charts and whatnot, but it's sort of evident in their overall prose that these people are not the kind of people that can dissect data in a manner that anyone would pay them to do so, regardless of their self-ascribed analytical prowess. They tend to distract/drag down the discussion. I honestly think that they mean to help, it's just that their contributions trigger those at the adult-table to get more edgy in the adult discussion. This pattern....outliers inflamming the center then walking away feeling success was referenced in an earlier thread...I forget the name of it...but it's when the people who are on your "side" pump you up for the fight when you're the prize fighter and they are the pipsqueak. You walk away bruised, they don't.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

actually the statistics are well down from the 80% paycheck to paycheck its now somewhere around 50% I know its still high but with wages increasing more than in the 8 years of the previous administration I hope it continues in its current direction.
Wages up unemployment down a good thing for any economy to be able to move forward.
Lets just hope it continues its upward climb.

Today’s real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then.
In fact, in real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today.
And what wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers. Since 2000, usual weekly wages have risen 3% (in real terms) among workers in the lowest tenth of the earnings distribution and 4.3% among the lowest quarter. But among people in the top tenth of the distribution, real wages have risen a cumulative 15.7%, to $2,112 a week – nearly five times the usual weekly earnings of the bottom tenth ($426).
Sluggish and uneven wage growth has been cited as a key factor behind widening income inequality in the United States. A recent Pew Research Center report*, based on an analysis of household income data from the Census Bureau, found that in 2016 Americans in the top tenth of the income distribution earned 8.7 times as much as Americans in the bottom tenth ($109,578 versus $12,523). In 1970, when the analysis period began, the top tenth earned 6.9 times as much as the bottom tenth ($63,512 versus $9,212).
* ☞ https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018...-among-asians/

The following guide will help you find full text primary sources showing retail prices for common items or "necessities of life." Prices for foods, clothing, household items, fuels for heat and transportation, and fees for services fall within the domain of this guide. Because costs can only be understood within their historical context, it also points to government reports showing average wages, salaries and earnings throughout history.
☞ https://libraryguides.missouri.edu/pricesandwages

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Singularity

I'd bet a paycheck that you and Ex actually would agree on most things if you sat down in real life. This medium just isn't conducive for this unless you can see past some triggering here.

I'd take the same bet, but as you know online forums seem to be places to say stuff we'd never say in person. The agw/cc bickering has been going on here for years, and there's now "history" between some of us that, like a thin scab, takes very little picking to get bleeding again. At this point, the responsible behaviour would be to not pick...?

[geoleo]

CC and leftist identity politics is the new religion for those who "need " one.

[geoleo]

Giving Scientology a run.

[geoleo]

Rec Eric Hoffers " The True Believer"

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'd take the same bet, but as you know online forums seem to be places to say stuff we'd never say in person. The agw/cc bickering has been going on here for years, and there's now "history" between some of us that, like a thin scab, takes very little picking to get bleeding again. At this point, the responsible behaviour would be to not pick...?

Totally agree it'd be a safe bet. Despite our frequent clashes, I would never peg L-E as not being smart, articulate, well-educated, and certainly well-intended. I hail from a (very) liberal family from the NE US who voted nothing but Democrat starting with FDR, grew up in a (very) liberal environment & surrounds, and ultimately settled in a community that has got to be one of the most liberal in this part of the US, albeit with plenty of conservatives around. (I'd use 'Progressive' in place of liberal but no longer know what that term, along with Liberal, actually means).

IOW, I've always been in environs it seems where I'm surrounded by friends & family who are mostly liberal but with a healthy mix of varying perspectives & opinions. The one & only registered, life-long Repub in the family is my father, and we think that was the direct result of his service in WW2 (the rearing up of Communism in the end that is). But even my father is more of a fiscal conservative, and was the only one of all his many conservative and liberal friends who vehemently opposed the second Gulf War. So I come from a definite liberal slant, but one replete with independent thinkers who never had a problem having their views tested, challenged, and sometimes even reconsidered. I'm not seeing much of what was that truly "liberal" tradition of thinking anymore, and that -- more than L-E's or anyone else's positions on global warming or any other issues -- troubles me greatly.

I learned a long time ago, and much of it through lively, energetic, and yes, sometimes contentious debate, that you'll lose friends & compromise family relations if, in the course of such discussions, you personalize political issues, label and stereotype your perceived adversaries, ascribe motives which may apply more generally but not to you, or proclaim that the other person "doesn't care" about shared concerns & common goals. In other words, if you are unable to keep emotions somewhat in check, and recognize that how you happen to "feel" about the issue is generally not going to influence anyone else.

I'll probably now be accused of much of the very same things I just outlined, and to the extent I responded in such ways to L-E's instigations he may want to consider the civility of most of my responses to others who share his views but not his anger. But few things are as irksome as those who are so certain of the righteousness of their own views that they are willing to use any means to discredit others who disagree.

We've talked endlessly in these threads how insulting it is -- and more importantly counterproductive to one's own positions & credibility -- the use of the 'denier' label is given its historical context, along with stereotyping one's perceived adversaries. Yet, here it is again. Shall I interpret?

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I've always been disappointed that CF is occasionally a nurturing spot for CC denial [skepticism about CC impacts]. I believe that's not so much an agenda as a reflection of the average demographics (age [older], nationality [white Americans], economic bracket [wealthier]) of yacht owners [not daysailors] here.

It's really just a matter of tolerance rather than opinion when it comes to being able to discuss hot-button topics with civility, and these discussions are emblematic of a problem primarily (but not exclusively) with the political Left these days. Namely a combo of good & not-so-good ideas, plenty of heartfelt sincerity, but total intolerance if not hatred for anyone who doesn't share their outlook. And whether intentional or not, a systematic (and largely successful) attempt to divide people based on immutable traits such as race, age, gender, political orientation, wealth, and even geography. IOW, almost the exact opposite of the ideals of liberalism from its heyday. This is the real problem dividing people these days (along with its inevitable pushback from the Right), and not how one "believes" when it comes to issues surrounding fossil fuels and global warming.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Assuming that you sort of agree that fossil fuel use should be cut back... any ideas? We're not really seeing any changes from Exile's proposal, which is to DO NOTHING.

So, when are you going to go over to China to make them DO SOMETHING?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

So, when are you going to go over to China to make them DO SOMETHING?

On it.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north...orse-1.5125217

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I just have a question ( and yes I know I have been a willing participant )
when and how did this thread about the Likely hood of inaccuracy in scientific papers turn into another MMGW thread?

Do we see an agenda that is being perpetually pushed?
Or is it just how this type of topic will gravitate due to the views of the participants?

At the moment the two great perverters of the scientific method are the pharma companies and the CC/AGW zealots, the tobacco mob lost their battle a couple of decades ago and are no longer in the running.

Unfortunately these religious controversies do tend to dominate our consciousness and sooner or later creep into every conversation.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

On it.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north...orse-1.5125217

boy what a load in that article .
You should see all of the coal fired plants they are building all over the planet.
You also do realise that by the Paris accords China is officially listed as a developing nation that would be getting billions in grants from all of the developed world countries

Trust in the fact that even if as you seem to imply is necessary that the evil United States were to stop emitting co2 today it would have 0 ( no ) net effect. The co2 level would just keep going up and up .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

At the moment the two great perverters of the scientific method are the pharma companies and the CC/AGW zealots, the tobacco mob lost their battle a couple of decades ago and are no longer in the running.

Unfortunately these religious controversies do tend to dominate our consciousness and sooner or later creep into every conversation.

IOW like I keep saying its all about the money for them .

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

...It turns out that this is about as truthful as the alarmism SailOar has been shoveling out about methane over the past 10 years of natural gas production....

The vast majority of the posts I've made regarding methane have been synopsis of scientific studies by those most knowledgeable in the relevant disciplines. The fact that you would make such a comment is why it is more accurate to describe you as a denier, not a skeptic.

When I first noticed your posting on AGW topics I felt you were making an honest attempt to be a skeptic, and I appreciated that about you even though I didn't always agree with you. At some point you gravitated away from being an honest skeptic and mostly became a champion for the anti-AGW crowd. You nit-pick over the slightest inaccuracy that an "alarmist" makes, yet completely ignore the whoppers that "deniers" make.

Originally Posted by Exile

...We've talked endlessly in these threads how insulting it is -- and more importantly counterproductive to one's own positions & credibility -- the use of the 'denier' label is given its historical context, along with stereotyping one's perceived adversaries. Yet, here it is again. Shall I interpret?....

You complain most eloquently when the term "denier" is used, yet seem to have no understanding that using the term "alarmist" is equally insulting.

EDIT:
For the record, I would be happy to have you call me an "alarmist" if you would extend me the same courtesy when I call you a "denier".

[newhaul]

Its about time people in Europe started waking up to the agw mythos .
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...climate-denial