Farmer suicides rise in India as climate warms, study shows

July 31, 2017 by Katy Daigle
In this July 22, 2017 file photo, an Indian farmer uses a pair of bulls to plough a vegetable field on the outskirts of Hyderabad, India. Researchers report a link between crop-damaging temperatures and suicide rates in India, where more than 130,000 farmers end their lives every year. (AP Photo/Mahesh Kumar A, file)

When Rani's husband died by drinking pesticide, he left the family in debt. But even if they could pay off the loans, Rani said their farming days are over.

"There are no rains," said the 44-year-old woman from drought-stricken Tamil Nadu, one of hundreds of farmers protesting in the capital for more government support. "Even for drinking, we get water only once in 10 days."

A study suggests India will see more such tragedies as climate change brings hotter temperatures that damage crops and exacerbate drought. For every 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming above 20 degrees C (68 degrees F) during the growing season in India, there are 67 more suicides on average, according to the findings published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, or PNAS.

The message "is that farming is an inherently risky occupation, with annual incomes often held hostage to the weather, and it's getting riskier in the era of climate change," said Vikram Patel, an Indian psychiatrist and mental health expert with Harvard Medical School in Boston who was not involved in the study.

Experts said the study's findings should raise alarms, especially with India's average temperatures expected to rise another 3 degrees C (5.4 degrees F) by 2050. That will bring more erratic weather events, more drought and stronger storms.

In this May 11, 2016 file photo, Indian farmer Anant More inspects his destroyed crop of sugarcane due to drought in Marathwada region, in the Indian state of Maharashtra. Researchers report a link between crop-damaging temperatures and suicide rates in India, where more than 130,000 farmers end their lives every year. (AP Photo/Manish Swarup, File)

"Anything that will affect occupational stability is going to affect farmers' mental health," Patel said.

Farming has always been considered a high-risk profession, and a single damaged harvest can drive some to desperation. With agriculture supporting more than half of India's 1.3 billion people, farmers have long been seen as the heart and soul of the country. But they've also seen their economic clout diminish over the last three decades. Once accounting for a third of India's gross domestic product, they now contribute only 15 percent of India's $2.26 billion economy.

There are many factors that can contribute to suicide, including poor crop yields, financial devastation or debt, access to easy methods of self-harm, or a lack of community support. In India, many farmers will drink toxic pesticides as a way out of backbreaking debt, with the government in some cases guaranteeing monetary aid to their surviving families. That provides a perverse incentive for suicide, "rewarding people who end their lives by paying family compensation, but only if they die," Patel said.

"We may not be able to stop the world from warming, but that doesn't mean we can't do something to address suicide," including providing more financial stability and paying more attention to mental health, he said.

The study released Monday should make those efforts even more urgent, experts said.

In this March 7, 2017 file photo, Indian women farmers work in their farm on the eve of International Women's Day on the outskirts of New Delhi, India. Researchers report a link between crop-damaging temperatures and suicide rates in India, where more than 130,000 farmers end their lives every year. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri, File)

"It provides evidence for a causal pathway—from unfavorable weather to poor crop yields to rural misery to increased suicide," said Dr. Howard Frumkin, a University of Washington environmental health professor who was not involved in the study. "With climate change bringing increasingly chaotic weather in many places, this causal pathway is likely to intensify."

India's farms are already hit regularly by strong storms, extreme drought, heat waves and other extreme weather events. Some still rely on rainfall rather than irrigation to water their crops. Scientists have shown that extreme weather events are already increasing as the planet warms.

For the study, researcher Tamma Carleton looked at suicide data from India's National Crime Records Bureau between 1967 and 2013, along with data on agricultural crop yields and on temperature change.

"I estimate that warming temperature trends over the last three decades have already been responsible for over 59,000 suicides throughout India," writes Carleton, who studies agriculture and resource economics at the University of California, Berkeley. In other words, warmer temperatures were a factor accounting for a 6.8 percent increase in suicides, the study says.

She noted limitations in the study, including an inability to differentiate between urban and rural suicides because the crime records bureau only began classifying farmer suicides in 1995. Other experts also noted that the actual number of suicides may be higher than the crime database counted, but said these concerns were unlikely to undermine the study's core findings.

In this Dec. 11, 2016 file photo, Indian farmer women walk carrying straw on their heads at Basi village on the outskirts of Allahabad, India. Researchers report a link between crop-damaging temperatures and suicide rates in India, where more than 130,000 farmers end their lives every year. (AP Photo/Rajesh Kumar Singh, File)

India's farmers, often complaining about being ignored, hold frequent protests to demand better crop prices, more loan waivers and even water delivery systems to guarantee irrigation during dry spells. Sometimes, they stage sit-ins or dump truckloads of vegetables onto highways to disrupt traffic.

For the past month, hundreds of farmers—some carrying human skulls they say are from farmers who committed suicide in the drought-stricken southern state of Tamil Nadu—have been staging what they say will be a 100-day protest in a central New Delhi square to "prevent the suicide of farmers who feed the nation."

The government recently introduced legislation to subsidize crop insurance aimed at reducing some of the financial risk faced by farmers who take out loans to buy seeds and agrochemicals. But experts note there is almost no discussion about mental health as it relates to India's farming community.

Agriculture Minister Radha Mohan Singh told lawmakers Thursday there were 11,458 farmer suicides in 2016—the lowest number in two decades. It was also a year of mild temperatures and normal monsoon rains.

He acknowledged that the number of farmer suicides had gone up by about 9 percent in each of the previous two years, both of which were marred by drought. The crime bureau found that 58 percent of the 12,602 farmer suicides in 2015 were driven by bankruptcy, indebtedness and other farming-related issues. Most of the victims were marginal cultivators or small-farm holders with less than 2 hectares (5 acres) of land.

In this Feb. 1, 2017 file photo, an Indian farmer works in his paddy field in Roja Mayong village, east of Gauhati, India. Researchers report a link between crop-damaging temperatures and suicide rates in India, where more than 130,000 farmers end their lives every year. (AP Photo/Anupam Nath, File)

"Suicides occur due to extreme economic despair," said M.S. Swaminathan, a geneticist whose work on high-yield rice and wheat crops helped drive India's Green Revolution in the 1960s. His research in the late 1980s found that a 1 degree C (1.8 degree F) temperature rise reduced a crop's duration by about one week, causing losses in the overall weight of harvest. His foundation works to find farming solutions not only to rising heat, but also to drought or salinity from coastal sea rise. Given these growing risks, he said, government policy has a large role to play.

"Suitable crop insurance and a prompt compensation of losses due to climate-related factors will help to avoid a sense of hopelessness that leads to suicide," Swaminathan said.

Explore further: Long after 1980s farm crisis, farmers still take own lives at a high rate

More information: Crop-damaging temperatures increase suicide rates in India, PNAS, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1701354114

Related Stories

Survey details impact of 2016 drought on New York farming

April 7, 2017

A survey of more than 200 New York farmers late last summer – during the worst drought in two generations – found that more than 70 percent of unirrigated, rain-fed field crops and pasture acreage had losses between 30 ...

India's rising temperatures are already deadly, study shows

June 7, 2017

India is now two and a half times more likely to experience a deadly heat wave than a half century ago, and all it took was an increase in the average temperature of just 0.5 degrees Celsius (less than 1 degree Fahrenheit), ...

Recommended for you

Carbon coating gives biochar its garden-greening power

October 20, 2017

For more than 100 years, biochar, a carbon-rich, charcoal-like substance made from oxygen-deprived plant or other organic matter, has both delighted and puzzled scientists. As a soil additive, biochar can store carbon and ...

Cool roofs have water saving benefits too

October 20, 2017

The energy and climate benefits of cool roofs have been well established: By reflecting rather than absorbing the sun's energy, light-colored roofs keep buildings, cities, and even the entire planet cooler. Now a new study ...

92 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

doogsnova
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2017
More proof that overpopulation is and will continue to be the cause of many huge tragedies and disasters. Billy Meier has been warning the world for more than 60 years, but cowards in the scientific community still don't understand, or don't have a spine to speak about it.
Shootist
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 31, 2017
Over population is so Malthusian, so 1970s.

cooler now than 1000 years ago. Medieval Climate Optimum
cooler now than 2000 years ago. Roman Climate Optimum
cooler now than 4000, 6500 and 8000 years ago. Holocene Climate Optimum.

Fact: The climate changes.
ab3a
3.1 / 5 (10) Jul 31, 2017
Suicide is complex and it has many causes and triggers. While a bad crop can lead to suicide, it is hardly the only cause. Claiming that this is climate-induced is very disingenuous.
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2017
Also, ab3a, there is no mention in the article with regards to the things that Monsanto has been doing there. Their debt problem relates to this Monsanto issue.
Tom_Andersen
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2017
The drought is over in Marathwada : October 2016 broke it. http://indianexpr...3061874/

Seems like weather, but hey, its worth a paper...
http://www.dnaind...-2519669
greenonions1
5 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2017
The level of empathy (lack of) when you read the comments here - is mind blowing. Tom_Aderson dismisses an article about Indian farmers who are committing suicide - due to harvest failure - with this statement
The drought is over in Marathwada
Then Tom links a more up to date article that says this -
poor rainfall during July has led to a situation of deficit in Marathwada, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala
Are we truly living at a time where there is just no compassion for our fellow earth mates? Coupled with stories like this - https://www.googl...PoMhLkqA are we totally devoid of any compassion?
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 01, 2017
Re: "The level of empathy (lack of) when you read the comments here - is mind blowing."

Well, perhaps it has something to do with the abuse of the funding agencies, whereby researchers think that it is okay to slap "climate change" onto any line of research, and suddenly they can get funding.

People see through the bandwagon research with such a high percentage of articles on this aggregator site dedicated to doomsday.
ThomasQuinn
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2017
Re: "The level of empathy (lack of) when you read the comments here - is mind blowing."

Well, perhaps it has something to do with the abuse of the funding agencies, whereby researchers think that it is okay to slap "climate change" onto any line of research, and suddenly they can get funding.

People see through the bandwagon research with such a high percentage of articles on this aggregator site dedicated to doomsday.


You are deflecting. The subject is lack of empathy, not your frustrations about imaginary funding abuses. The fact that you are incapable of realizing this demonstrates your personal lack of empathy and basic human decency.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (8) Aug 01, 2017
The shameless PATHOLOGICAL LIES of the AGW Cult to exploit every human tragedy
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2017
I think that it is worth a mention that the Indian government has destroyed it's own economy by cash and gold restrictions. In an effort to stop tax cheating they have increased poverty. The police can declare your gold illegal and confiscate it at will. This reflects back to the farmers who become even poorer.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (8) Aug 01, 2017
I think that it is worth a mention that the Indian government has destroyed it's own economy by cash and gold restrictions.
Why is this worth mentioning MR? Is it also worth mentioning that rural parts of India have a caste system - and a stone age tribal system that punishes young girls for the crime of being raped? - http://www.chicag...ory.html Perhaps we should mention the colonial oppression of Britain - that left India in tatters? https://www.bloom...dia-back Or perhaps today's article is about the effects of drought - brought on by climate change - to the poor rural populations of India. And the comments section - lead by genius' like you and antigoracle - who have nothing constructive to add. Your conservative education is a joke MR. Notice you never support your claims with any evidence...
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2017
well so much for sticking to just one sock puppet, eh hannes/reeve?
Their debt problem relates to this Monsanto issue
skipping right past the irrelevancies of the point and it's being conjecture without evidence....

whereas monsanto does have a presence in the area, you're making subjective commentary based upon your personal bias and delusional ideation as well as unsupported beliefs

for starters, your comment is based upon lack of evidence

you can't even provide evidence that most farmers are monsanto, let alone the bulk of the farmers who are specifically afflicted with suicidal ideation

your jumping to unsupported conclusions is also a specific trait common to most pseudoscience idiots and with your other comments indicates conspiracist ideation

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2017
@mr166
The police can declare your gold illegal and confiscate it at will. This reflects back to the farmers who become even poorer.
this was also the case in the US at one time: in this country, from 1933 to 1974 it was illegal for U.S. citizens to own gold in the form of gold bullion, without a special license. still today you may have older LE that aren't familiar with law changes confiscate bullion (not common, but it keeps David L Ganz busy in NYC)

this isn't necessarily indication of anything in the Indian gov't other than the attempt to maximize precious resources and gov't control over said resources. we still have a similar gov't program in the US, especially for land: it's is called eminent domain

now, perhaps the Indian gov't has destroyed it's economy, but surely poverty due to overpopulation and lack of resources is a mitigating factor?
have ya checked out water resources in India lately...

(see also GreenO's post above!)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2017
Claiming that this is climate-induced is very disingenuous.
@ab3a
i see your point but ...

now, offered IMHO only and because of my personal experiences in country:
review the information linked above by GreenO
given the overpopulation, caste system, religious fanaticism in certain parts and other heavy influences that tend to be present... the additional stressors of climate change and the complete lack of ability to control anything regarding the issue is likely a major point to be sure

there are areas that are almost exclusively agrarian and depend almost entirely upon farming for subsistence and existence... the effects of climate change are disastrous to this type society, especially when there is not only poverty with limited technology, but limited resources that can be utilised even with any modern tech (like water)

whereas suicidal ideation is complex, it's also easily influenced in those circumstances of constant high stress
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2017
Normally I am completely at odds with the Capt, however he has good points here. Concerning Climate Change, It Happens, not always because of what humans do, but also due to swinging temperature patterns, like El Nino/La Nina and similar places, or due to volcanism, fires, soil depletion etc. But, Climate Does Change, I have lived long enough to see it happen, so that is direct, imperical evidence, even if it is subjective.

That mankind affects climate change, I do not see much way that we cannot be making changes to the climate, especially since we tend to sit near the coasts and heavily influence the water quality, temparature, life-holding ability and evaportion rates of said bodies of water. That heavily influences the amount of rainfall we get on land, and Mankind has already turned vast areas into desert, the deforestation of The Holy Land is only a single example in a very long line of historical incidences, largely shown by cultures that died out after ruining the ecology.
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2017
http://www.foodde...mar/20-2

Monsanto loses millions of dollars after Indian farmers switch to indigenous seeds

Submitted by FoodDemocracyNo... on March 20, 2017 - 12:24pm

"Monsanto claims that the genetically modified cotton seeds they sell are superior. So why are so many people trying to switch?

Monsanto is losing millions of dollars now that farmers in India are switching to indigenous cotton seeds rather than Bt cotton.

The agrochemical company is known for pushing a form of Bt cotton in India for the last decade. They have been accused of manipulating laws in order to enter the Indian market.

Monsanto's manipulation and greed in India has caused hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers to commit suicide. Between the years of 1995 and 2013, more than 300,000 farmer suicides occurred, many of which were linked to Monsanto ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2017
(cont'd)

"... Farmers are forced to pay for Monsanto's costly seeds, which then force them to pay for the expensive pesticides to effectively grow them, as Bt cotton's pest resistant quality fades over time.

These farmers are losing their lands, and their livelihoods, due to the debt they incur trying to afford Monsanto's products. MANY OF THE FARMERS DRINK THE CHEMICAL INSECTICIDES IN ORDER TO COMMIT SUICIDE.

But recently the Indian government has been promoting the use of indigenous seeds as an alternative. In the past year Monsanto has lost $75 million in royalties from the switch. As Keshav Raj Kranthi of India's Central Institute for Cotton Research stated, 'Just wait for the crucial three to four years to see a complete, natural turnaround. By then most farmers will give up Bt cotton and go for the indigenous variety.'"
Turgent
1 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2017
Just have to be skeptical here. In the abstract is "I estimate that warming over the last 30 y is responsible for 59,300 suicides in India, accounting for 6.8% of the total upward trend." Study is not available and how much warming is not stated. From New Delhi's Hindustan Times Mar. 27 2017 "According to the India Meteorological Department (IMD), in line with rising temperatures across the globe, all India mean temperatures have risen nearly 0.60 degree Celsius over the last 110 years." How can anything be meaningful be fished out of such small and large numbers. You have to be careful as some of the Phys,org authors really stilt things or they just cut an paste it from part of their larger organization, without every reading the paper. In best case a 1 degree Fahrenheit change be tracked to a precise 6.8% increase of 30 years?
Steelwolf
5 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2017
On Monsanto (deMonSatan Co) I do feel that they have WAY overstepped their bounds when they went in with their GMO products that were designed to produce a crop, but no new seedstock for the next year, so that farmers HAD to go back to Monsanto due to contracts that the farmers did not understand all of. A great number of Monsanto farmers have suicided, this is very true. Most of their products are long term toxic as well.

Here in the US they basically stole land by contaminating it with the pollen from their GMO products, and then sued the nearby farmers for 'stealing their product' and having the land confiscated and given to them, in State after State this has happened, and the same devil's contract with buying seed from Monsanto and other Bio-Tech firms that do the same things, GMO and force them on unknowing farmers at outrageous prices with too good to be true stories of the product and then no accountability other than a Mean Bill Collector, Armed, if you should complain.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2017
Turgent
How can anything be meaningful be fished out of such small and large numbers.
Sure - that is a valid point - and it is hard to tease out the details - in such a complex subject. If there is 0.6 degree overall warming, what does that mean in terms of seasonal temps, rainfall situation etc. etc. We can say that this study is one piece in a massive jigsaw puzzle, and seems to support the science - that says that the globe is warming, and there are going to be climate and weather implications as a result of that warming. What I find staggering is the lack of any level of empathy/concern for the poor farmers who are dealing with these circumstances. I am a back yard farmer - in an area that can be prone to heat waves and drought. Farmers in my state struggle - and it is a year to year crap shoot. I am just blown away by the conservatives willingness to display their disdain for others we share our planet with.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2017
@hannes/reeve idiot
http://www.foodde...mar/20-2
really?
you couldn't come up with something a bit more factual?

you went with a blog?

a blog run by a self professed "public relations company"?

even if you accept that they have an "expertise in Sustainable Agriculture", you have to see that the site is against any genetically modified food crops, except the "old school genetically modified ones" they advocate for, like corn, popcorn, tomato's, potato's, rice and just about everything else humans eat

.

so before you gish gallop per your normal tactic, i suggest perhaps you go and find more reputable non-biased data

and quit spamming with your conspiracist bullsh*t, as that is almost worse than your eu pseudoscience bullsh*t

IOW - if ya can't produce factual numbers and data that can be verified and validated, STFU
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2017
Study is not available and how much warming is not stated.
@Turgent
well, you can do a little homework yourself and take into consideration prior historical studies on society and the effects of heat exposure: https://scholar.g...dt=0%2C4

we have historically attempted to make predictable models based on extrapolations of past known data etc
https://public.ps...89A1.PDF

You have to be careful as some of the Phys,org authors really stilt things
most of the stuff is automatic - this is a news aggregate
for the most part, one should never trust the data in any article, especially with regard to specifics about the science

unlike an abstract, which has a requirement for factual accuracy regarding the data in order to establish a synopsis for a specific audience, articles are designed to entice a wide spectrum
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2017
Most of their products are long term toxic as well
@steelwolf
please show the long term studies that demonstrate this fact
thanks
Normally I am completely at odds with the Capt, however he has good points here
thanks
but where we really typically disagree centers around evidence, the levels and source of evidence and it's ability to be validated or replicated, like your following commentary in your post...
Concerning Climate Change, It Happens
yes, climate change (the general term) does happen
it has happened
it will happen

but just for the record, there is considerable validated data showing that Climate Change, (in caps), the specific anthropogenic global warming situation we are now in, is directly due to our human influences and pollution

and people who disagree while not accepting the overwhelming evidence are making an argument from their beliefs
not from evidence
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2017
Re: "really? you couldn't come up with something a bit more factual?"

I was initially exposed to the Monsanto link in a Netflix documentary dedicated to the subject. I've lost track of the name of that documentary, but what I'd like to emphasize is that the problem was described by an actual Indian person in the documentary.

I shouldn't have to state this, but when it comes to Monsanto, the expectation should be that they will jump at any opportunity to shift blame away from themselves for what is happening in India. If this means paying even just $100k to fund some climate change study that comes to the same conclusion, then that is actually quite the bargain for them.

You might try asking yourself: Why would somebody kill themselves by drinking herbicide? Part of being respectful to these people is to consider that they were perhaps trying to make a statement through the details of the act.
Turgent
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2017
Stumpy,

Did some homework per your recommendation. Read the first paper you referenced. Lets say it is right on. So where is there any rational its relevance here? Has a change of 1 degree F made this paper relevant?

As regards models - For your homework check out mathematics of non-linear, chaotic, initial conditions, complex dynamics, multi-variable regression, etc. Climate is many interacting chaotic and complex systems interacting within confining forces of equilibrium. It isn't a deterministic system and even if it was their is not enough information to model climate.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2017
Turgent
It isn't a deterministic system and even if it was their is not enough information to model climate.
That is a very complex topic Turgent - one that we go around and around periodically on Physorg. I believe you are wrong on this issue - and using some complex terms - but perhaps not fully understanding the subject. Cant say I fully understand the subject - ended math at pre-calc, and just took a couple of intro level science courses. I think your flaw can be shown easily though - by asking this question. Are you saying that all the experts - who do have the math and science background to understand the topics of chaos, complexity, and determinism are wrong, and that you know better than they do? You realize that there is a whole branch of science dedicated to modeling the climate, something you claim cannot be done?
Turgent
1 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2017
Greenonions
To your question. Are you saying that all the experts - who do have the math and science background to understand the topics of chaos, complexity, and determinism are wrong, and that you know better than they do?
No definitely not.
More I am speaking to the limits of what can be done with science. The best introduction by a climate MIT scientist I ever heard was words to the effect "I used Napier-Stokes equations and limited the model to that as any additional complexity would detract from its relevancy if I added more." Scientific wisdom. There is not enough of what we don't know. Rarely do you see in a paper mention of a models limits or potential weakness which the scientific expert knows but does not reveal. Scientists do have strong ego's and tend to consciously or unconsciously induce bias.
snoosebaum
not rated yet Aug 01, 2017
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2017
Turgent
More I am speaking to the limits of what can be done with science.
You answered the question with a 'no.' But then you seem to go on to imply that you actually do think you know more than the large group of scientists who spend their life constructing the models. No one is saying they are perfect - any more than weather models are perfect. The fact that a whole branch of science - spends thousands of hours of super computer time - modeling the climate - would surely indicate that it can be modeled.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2017
@hannes/reeve the delusional
but what I'd like to emphasize is that the problem was described by an actual Indian person in the documentary
so, your facts come from a possible documentary you can't name or point to, but you insure is valid because an actual indian said so... and that's the best you got?

you don't see the problem i have here?

i am not saying monsanto is some paragon of virtue, but if you want to put it out that [x] is corrupt, bad or in any way monstrous, perhaps you should actually get some facts that can be checked, verified and then validated
You might try asking yourself: Why would somebody kill themselves by drinking herbicide?
you can't make a case against monsanto so now you will attach meaning you can't know or validate to an act of desperation from a person who is not in their right mind?

so... is the kid who blew out his brains last year against Colt guns?
or Federal ammunition?

see the problem yet?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2017
Has a change of 1 degree F made this paper relevant?
@Turgent
first off, it's not just 1 degree F, it's a jump in the global average by 1 degree F, which is significant
and don't forget this is just in a very short time period, and climbing

so yes, it's relevant as it will produce more hot days - and the social, societal, psychological and physiological stressors that go hand in hand with that change
It isn't a deterministic system and even if it was their is not enough information to model climate
i've heard the argument that models are unreliable many times, but never that you couldn't model as there wasn't enough info

1- there isn't enough information to make specific arguments about specific weather on a specific day, maybe, but you can make a generalization that is accurate

2- this is demonstrated by current models- and the current models are getting more and more accurate as scientists collect more data

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2017
@turgent cont'd
Observation trumps supposition based upon a belief, and if you take a look at current models and data, you can see that they're pretty accurate and getting better

more to the point:
This betrays a misunderstanding of the difference between weather, which is chaotic and unpredictable, and climate which is weather averaged out over time. While you can't predict with certainty whether a coin will land heads or tails, you can predict the statistical results of a large number of coin tosses
https://skeptical...iate.htm

and if you don't like that blog reference, feel free to refute their data with them and link the results here
just remember, climate is not the same thing as weather
climate is averaged, like the temps we're talking about
and that you know better than they do?
from your post to greeno

you have it backwards
the problem really is that you're not comprehending the problem
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2017
@turgent last
still from your post to GreenO
More I am speaking to the limits of what can be done with science
for starters, you are not talking science, but rather applied science or technology

science is about gaining knowledge in small incremental steps of verified validated evidence

you're making the assumption that science is the ability to apply this knowledge in any meaningful way to the physical world, and that just isn't always the case (see: Casimir forces)
induce bias
yes and no

the scientific method takes great pains to remove bias from a study - the reason why is because scientists compete to prove each other wrong
this explains it: https://www.youtu...bQIlu4mk

it seems that you're not a regular reader of scientific papers
perhaps you're getting your information from a biased source?
source is important - if you want to know about politics, you don't hit up 4chan/b, right?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2017
and that you know better than they do?
from your post to greeno
@turgent
it seems that you copied this from GreenO's post and didn't put the requisite quote marks or the code that turns it grey and notes it's a quote

i did not realise you were quoting - sorry

for the future, you can either put the quote marks in or add the following after removing the spaces:
[ q ] this starts the quote
[ / q ] this ends the quote

you can also just use the "quote" button at the bottom of a post, then edit for length (using a word processor helps - just keep a blank document open and copy/paste between)

PEACE
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Aug 02, 2017
Turgent
More I am speaking to the limits of what can be done with science.
You answered the question with a 'no.' But then you seem to go on to imply that you actually do think you know more than the large group of scientists who spend their life constructing the models. No one is saying they are perfect - any more than weather models are perfect. The fact that a whole branch of science - spends thousands of hours of super computer time - modeling the climate - would surely indicate that it can be modeled.
Yeah, but...
Are they actually getting the RIGHT model?
Or just a "within acceptable limits" model...?
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2017
Stumpy, all you need to do is to google Monsanto and check the Wiki. It is at least a lot better balanced than most of the anti-monsanto screeds, however, one must remember that DDT, Agent Orange and much of that line came from Monsanto, yes, presently they sell their biotech stuff, but nearly ALL of that seed is coated with a toxic (to insects and humans) fertillizer and made specifically to be used with glyphosphate, which sells around a million tons a year of the chemical. They are also the only US manufacturer of white phosphorus for our military.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2017
Whydening
Are they actually getting the RIGHT model?
Or just a "within acceptable limits" model...?
Well - I guess the 'right' model would be 100% accurate. Meaning we could predict the weather, in any spot in the world, with 100% accuracy, at any date in the future. The amount of data points needed for such analysis is of course unimaginable. Anything else is less than 'right.' The big question is - at what point do our models become useful? Weather forecasting uses models. Obviously they are not perfect (or 'right'.) But they are useful.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2017
Re: "so, your facts come from a possible documentary you can't name or point to, but you insure is valid because an actual indian said so... and that's the best you got? ... you don't see the problem i have here?"

The real problem here -- as usual -- is that you are not reacting to the larger CONTEXT of the situation.

That context includes a publish-or-perish problem which drives academic researchers towards claims which are easy to publish.

The context includes PR departments by major corporations leveraging the climate change narrative every chance they can to distract from their own activities.

The context also includes a very obvious expansion of climate change claims far beyond their actual scope, leaving us with so many claims that climate change is the cause that a rational approach demands we be vigilant and skeptical of each instance.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2017
google Monsanto and check the Wiki
@steel
ok, not to be rude but this is a crap answer and the reason we often disagree: evidence

the topic you're discussing is GMO's and monsanto's toxicity over the long term, not chemical agents specifically used to kill which are already known to be toxic, so all that DDT and agent orange is a distraction from the point

and your willie P point?

as for the fertilizer: i know of many that are toxic to humans (human waste) and or animals - so the proof around that is whether it's in the final product

so is it found in sold product?
is it found in autopsies and deaths?
do we have traces of it in human bodies in society?

let me also be clear about this: i am not defending monsanto by any means - i live in a rural remote area surrounded by farms etc: i've seen monsanto and their tactics up close and personal

what you're not getting out of my point above is: every staple and almost all food we consume is genetically modified
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2017
@hannes/reeve idiot
is that you are not reacting to the larger CONTEXT of the situation
the larger context that i just pointed out is that you continually make claims that are only supported by the delusional beliefs you have, or that you like to base your conspiratorial bullsh*t claims on nonexistent evidence or your perception of things

just because you believe it to be true doesn't mean it is true, nor even reality

making claims without evidence is religion, not science

.

and before you make yet another false claim about being rational, vigilant and skeptical, you should first learn about the scientific method and get an education system that isn't based in conspiracist ideation, but rather facts that can be proven

science is skeptical about everything from the outset: it's WHY the require evidence and repetition, validation and peer review

it's why they don't accept random unprovable unverifiable claims by people like you
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2017
@hannes/reeve idiot cont'd
The context includes PR departments by major corporations leveraging the climate change narrative every chance they can to distract from their own activities
funny you should mention this one: the bulk of the org's using this tactic are the ones who are either pushing out the CO2 pollution or the ones with a vested interest in keeping oil and the status quo for financial gain

that isn't debatable, either
and there really is a hidden conspiracy attempting to create a division between science and the public, especially since the public, like you, tend to not comprehend the science
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

so before you pop off with more stupidity, try to present factual evidence that can be validated from a reputable source for your claims

not opinion
not beliefs
not untrackable unverifiable maybe documentaries still unnamed that you can't prove exist
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2017
Re: "and before you make yet another false claim about being rational, vigilant and skeptical, you should first learn about the scientific method and get an education system that isn't based in conspiracist ideation, but rather facts that can be proven"

Understanding the scientific method will only get a person so far. To fully characterize the REALITY of the situation, a person has to also actively seek out, listen to, and think through the claims of academic whistleblowers.

Those whistleblowers have pointed to gatekeeping in peer review, where established researchers block competing claims.

They've revealed a graduate system which weeds out students (around 50% of the total) who question what they are learning.

They've revealed a bandwagon research problem where academics compete on their citation scores and CV rather than seeking out truth.

Clinging to the scientific method in the face of these claims is full-on blinders.
Turgent
2 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2017
Stumpy you are splitting angel hairs.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2017
Stumpy you are splitting angel hairs
@Turgent
if you're replying about my posts to hannes/reeve or steel, then you should first read their historical exchanges before making comment

if you're commenting about my post to you, you have:
1- demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between weather, which is chaotic and unpredictable, and climate which is weather averaged out over time

2- argued a strawman about bias in the scientific method. statistically speaking, the peer review process has incredibly successful numbers and scientists will literally rip to shreds any credibility of a study that demonstrates bias, especially when it can be refuted with experiments and demonstrations of bias

3- argue about the limits of applied science while attributing this without justification

so, clarify your point(s) with links/references from reputable sources for the sake of communication
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2017
@hannes/reeve the pseudoscience idiot sock
To fully characterize the REALITY of the situation
for starters, it is one thing to review the whistleblowers in science - as i've already demonstrated more than a few times, this is something *all scientists* have to endure in early education to get a degree

it is another thing entirely to base your conspiratorial claims without evidence solely upon the delusional belief that those instances in any way validate your historical arguments for pseudoscience

.

repeating a delusional belief when it's been proven false is called stupidity (or religion -take your pick)

the problem you have with science and the community is that they refuse to accept your belief system as valid because, and i repeatedly proved this, it does not have evidence that can be validated or replicated, nor is it falsifiable, nor does it make predictions that can be checked

deal with it
Turgent
Aug 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2017
@Turgent
reductio ad absurdum
projection

you also tried strawman and many other logical fallacies - so lets leave your own argument tactics out of this, ok?

thanks

HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2017
Re: "it is another thing entirely to base your conspiratorial claims without evidence solely upon the delusional belief that those instances in any way validate your historical arguments for pseudoscience"

Is it really a "conspiracy" that Monsanto would drive Indian farmers into debt by devising a seed which does not generate additional seeds, and then forcing the Indians onto herbicides when those seeds don't generate better crops?

What aspect of this is at all conspiratorial?

All I see are the stereotypical behaviors of an American corporation -- behaviors which are permitted to go on in large part because of people like yourself muddying awareness of the situation.

Neither is there any conspiracy in climate scientists applying their narrative to all aspects of our lives. This is obvious. No "conspiracy" is required to produce the behavior when what they are after is in plain sight: publications, a CV and funding.
Turgent
1 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2017
Greenonions

Thought about your comment on the branches of mathematics I mentioned. It really isn't that difficult. There just isn't enough time in school curriculums to tough on it. This stuff can be described to a layman. You might enjoy surfing the web and youtube to have some fun. Wikipedia https://en.wikipe...s_theory isn't bad.

Cheers
Turgent
1 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2017
Greenonions

I shouldn't have cited Wikipedia. They make it intimidating. Try
http://www.abarim...b94TytEY

https://www.youtu...MbYDjpGM

Turgent
1 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2017
Stumpy,

Did you do your homework?
Turgent
1 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2017
Stumpy,

True weather and climate prediction becomes more accurate as initial conditions are determined with ever greater precision. The conundrum - 1. assume we live in a deterministic butterfly effect world then every particle's position and momentum in time must be known initially, with prefect precision. Hence, impossible information requirement. Two problems Heisenberg's uncertainty principal and quantum effects are macroscopic events over time, perturbations. Hence system is indeterministic. Predication fails based on the sensitivity to error of precision and perturbations. Assuming a chaotic system can be approximated then what is the scale and boundaries imposed by other mechanisms, chaotic or not, of equilibrium? Do we know the variables, equations, and whether or not the variables are dependent or independent?

greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2017
Turgent - you keep ducking the main question. If - as you say - the system is not deterministic, and cannot be modeled, what are all those Phd's doing running their super computer models? What special knowledge do you have - that makes them all wrong, and you right? Where did you get your special knowledge? How come they don't have that special knowledge?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2017
@hannes/reeve the illiterate pseudoscience idiot
All I see are the stereotypical behaviors of an American corporation -- behaviors which are permitted to go on in large part because of people like yourself muddying awareness of the situation
i'll type this slowly because i know you can't read well:
1- i'm not defending monsanto (already mentioned, you idiot) but you can't make unsubstantiated conjectures and then ASSume it's equivalent to science or scientific evidence

2- i am not the one muddying the situation: you're the idiot who wants to put out the false claims not supported by evidence, like your oft repeated lie that scientists don't learn about their own history or the stories around whistleblowers

that in itself is where your conspiratorial leanings emanate
you can't differentiate between reality, evidence and what you believe to be true
you ASSume that because you believe, it's real and true

sorry, but there really is no bigfoot, and the eu is a cult
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2017
@turgent
Did you do your homework?
did you learn how to differentiate between weather and climate?
1. assume we live in a deterministic butterfly effect world ... blah blah blah logical fallacies blah
i see you didn't read a single link or reference i left above...

perhaps before you continue, you should go back and read them as you're making yourself look like an idiot...

really
no joke

look Russel... given your projection and myriad logical fallacies, and the fact that you can't actually comprehend some really basic points (links/references above), then why do you want to dig your hole deeper and "explain" why your teapot must be in orbit...

is it so that we believe your argument?
or so that you believe it?

hate to tell you this but... that's religion

Turgent
1 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2017
Greenonions,
I really don't mean to pretend I have superior knowledge and do wish to avoid your question.
Professionally I dig into numbers (commercially), mostly backwards. So when somebody states that they have determined the status of x in five years by doing thus and so it's only accurate if all their conditions remained constant. When the model is more than simplistic the author usually provides an estimated bandwidth the projection will stay within over time. The bandwidth is usually a cone around the projection which grows wider over time. Uncertainty grows unless there are equilibrium forces which keep the uncertainty within a linear band. Many times the author will state that they have a 95% confidence interval (5+/-1.75). That is there is a 95% statistical probability that their projection will stay within certain bounds.

Part 1
Turgent
1 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2017
Part 2.

See http://www.physic...p?id=103 for an example of the degree of confidence used to validate the higgs boson. It is excruciatingly high. This of course is easier done in the hard sciences. There is a dilemma when using multivariable equations. The more variables and complex your equations the easier it is to get within the bounds of 95% confidence, however, statistically the confidence interval means much less. If a model can use past data, temperature say, and have a 95% confidence interval around the data set then it is a reasonable base of projection. One model I saw was using the present temperature of every cubic meter surface area then crunching the numbers in a supercomputer. The problem was that they did not have past data to test the model on. There was no test of validity to past data.
Turgent
1 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2017

Part 3

I am just very skeptical of using complex math on multi-variable equations particularly if one or more of the variables is a function of another.
This http://www.cgd.uc...vari.pdf is a paper which I believe is solid and scientifically professional. This is reflected in the conclusion, page 320. Its variables are limited and they clearly state its limits in the last sentence. Wisdom. Hope this helps.
Turgent
1 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2017
First sentence should have read. I really don't mean to pretend I have superior knowledge and do NOT wish to avoid your question.
Turgent
1 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2017
Stumpy,

Weather is a small increment within the larger fractal of climate. Differentiation enough? I'll let you look up fractal, its easy. Could more than one definition of weather be correct?

I did read the first paper you cited. It was so grossly off point, I didn't pursue any more of your citations.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2017
I really don't mean to pretend I have superior knowledge and do wish to avoid your question.
Duly noted. I am somewhat familiar with the topics you bring up - such as error bands, confidence intervals etc. I did take a stats class when I was studying psych. Nothing you say affects my understanding that climate models are very useful tools. Of course be skeptical of all you want. I am skeptical of people who trott out the denial meme of the week - and then obfuscate all over the place when attempt is made to pin them down. Climate is obviously deterministic - and models are very helpful tools that the army of experts who are studying the system use on a regular basis - and within the error bars - are doing just fine.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2017
Differentiation enough?
@turg
depends on what you post next regarding statistics and models

if you're making a claim that we can't make accurate predictions for climate, then you need to do a little more research
start with this blog: https://skeptical...iate.htm

It was so grossly off point
no, it wasn't
it was specific evidence to demonstrate that heat has sociological and other effects
that is one reason i put the part about "society and the effects of heat exposure"
I didn't pursue any more of your citations
so you're making an active choice to ignore evidence that may directly refute your claims
that is called irrational

listen: science is based upon evidence
it's not a belief system like religion or politics

so when you refuse to accept the evidence you're making your argument one of religion, not science
it doesn't matter how much math you know when it's falsified by the evidence
HannesAlfven
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2017
The case against Monsanto ghost writing academic papers heats up ...

https://science.s...d-killer

Based on a New York Times article titled and dated:

Monsanto Emails Raise Issue of Influencing Research on Roundup Weed Killer
By DANNY HAKIM
AUG. 1, 2017

Slashdot summary:

"Danny Hakim reports via The New York Times (Warning: article may be paywalled; alternate source):

Documents released Tuesday in a lawsuit against Monsanto raised new questions about the company's efforts to influence the news media and scientific research and revealed internal debate over the safety of its highest-profile product, the weed killer Roundup. The active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, is the most common weed killer in the world and is used by farmers on row crops and by home gardeners ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2017
(cont'd)

"... While Roundup's relative safety has been upheld by most regulators, a case in federal court in San Francisco continues to raise questions about the company's practices and the product itself.

The documents underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company goes to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes's website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment. A similar issue appeared in academic research. An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, 'I can't be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication.' ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2017
(cont'd)

"... He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: 'We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.' Mr. Miller's 2015 article on Forbes's website was an attack on the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization that had labeled glyphosate a probable carcinogen, a finding disputed by other regulatory bodies. In the email traffic, Monsanto asked Mr. Miller if he would be interested in writing an article on the topic, and he said, 'I would be if I could start from a high-quality draft.' The article appeared under Mr. Miller's name, and with the assertion that 'opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.' The magazine did not mention any involvement by Monsanto in preparing the article."

Stumpy: "you're the idiot who wants to put out the false claims not supported by evidence"

Stumpy, it's called paying attention.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2017
@hannes/reeve the idiot pseudoscience sock
it's called paying attention
it's called gish gallop and an epic failure to comprehend the scientific method, let alone levels of evidence
Based on a New York Times article titled and dated
want to see something else based upon a new york times article?
Saturday Night Fever
- which is "based upon a 1976 New York magazine article by British writer Nik Cohn, "Tribal Rites of the New Saturday Night" "

this is the exact reason why articles aren't considered evidence

this is also the reason why you and i clash so often: you accept ANY evidence that supports your claims whereas i only accept valid evidence that can be verified and is not equivalent to someone's opinion

i don't care about people's opinion-i aint running for office

this is why i don't believe you when you claim to be a researcher: confirmation bias
nor when you claim to be working in the best interest of people: lack of integrity
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2017
@hannes/reeve the idiot pseudoscience sock who loves gish gallop cont'd

if you want to make a point, read this from your above BS
Documents released Tuesday in a lawsuit against Monsanto
see that small section that i quoted?

that is the only relevant anything in your three posts: so where are the documents? where is the science?

until you actually get those documents and the science behind the *claims* of the article, then your argument is bullsh*t gish gallop

if you want to present a reputable science argument use only Google Science and the links that go to reputable peer reviewed journals

not vixra
not any of the idiot thinderdolts pages
not random confirmation bias articles
not web pages you make yourself with links to other conspiracist pages

random web page searches are not the same thing because the internet in general is not constrained by the scientific method - those sites are specific and known

evidence is king
Turgent
2 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2017
Stumpy,

Are you demented, or just a little (very little) unpleasant pseudoscience troll who pretends to know science and math, is incapable of engaging in rational discourse, and puke repetitive snippets of stupidity like "blah, blah" or "science is based upon evidence". Science is much more than that and illustrates your superficial understanding. Your first citation could have been replaced by "there are more shootings in Chicago on hot nights." or "heat causes stress". No argument. So what, your citation quantitatively argues is what we all know. You'd be good for the Spanish Inquisition; ignorance and religion. Your mind is like a steel trap, locked shut. Your depth of understanding is pile Bovine Secretion. I thought I might learn something by dialoguing with others here, but not about Bovine Secretors. Try learning a fundamental, thermodynamics. Your contribution is negative.

Poking fun at you isn't fun anymore.
HannesAlfven
Aug 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2017
@turdTROLL
pretends to know science and math blah blah bullsh*t blah
this is called projection

for starters, the "heat" argument is directly relevant to your own first post and it also answers your questions - the fact that you ignored it established you as a trolling denier

then there is the fact that you are making a false claim that is directly refuted by the evidence, which is
their is not enough information to model climate
[sic]
taking this into consideration, you've now validated you're a trolling denier as you intentionally misrepresent the science and data, even though you make the claim you professionally dig into numbers (commercially)

throwing out babble that isn't supported by evidence, then refusing to acknowledge evidence that directly refutes your claims (that has a sh*tload of the maths you want) is called really, really stupid

it's also called pseudoscience

wear your idiot badge proudly because you earned it
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2017
Stumpy is probably the perfect example of what is wrong with the climate change movement.
Turgent
1 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2017
HannesAlfven

Yes it is very scary. In a healthy society there should be those who agree, disagreed, and those who express skepticism. I am skeptical because of the bias I see. I'm basically agnostic on the issue, but am tarred and feathered as a denier because I see reason for some skepticism. I guess it is the dumbing down of America, where students aren't taught the thinking of critical analysis, has worked. Ignorance becomes emotional religion.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2017
@turd
In a healthy society there should be those who agree, disagreed, and those who express skepticism
this is fine for something like politics or religion - and i am all for it because when it comes to opinion, no one person is superior to another

it is fine for you to not believe science as well, but it doesn't make the facts any less factual

just because you want to see bias and you're incapable of comprehending the data doesn't mean it's not real, especially when it's validated or when you see it's predictions being pretty damn accurate, hence the link i provided here: https://skeptical...iate.htm

but am tarred and feathered as a denier because I see reason for some skepticism
NO
you're tarred and feathered a denier because you deny the science

if you want to impress someone with your numbers argument, feel free to write it up in a study and submit it to a peer reviewed journal, or even the site i just linked
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2017
@turd cont'd
I guess it is the dumbing down of America, where students aren't taught the thinking of critical analysis, has worked. Ignorance becomes emotional religion
well, you're speaking from experience, but it's personal and entirely yours
there is a way to learn why you are considered the ignorant emotional denier... start with that first link
when you finish with the first link, you may understand my repeated point above
if not, then go here: (it's free) https://ocw.mit.e...=physics

.

.

Stumpy is
@hannes/reeve the pseudoscience cult idiot
and you're a perfect example of the epic failure of your education system to teach critical thinking, logic and the scientific method

the only reason you come here is because you would be banned for spam and trolling stupidity anywhere else that MOD's, especially for linking your pseudoscience site

facts are facts regardless whether you believe in them or not
LOL
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2017
Captain
you're tarred and feathered a denier because you deny the science
Agreed.
Turgent - skepticism/healthy debate are great - and important parts of our world. But there must some basis - in terms of agreeing on reality. Science is that agreed basis of reality. That is the collective activity of millions of smart people. So if I am going to be skeptical about the age of the earth, and want to argue that it is only 7,000 years old - that is just fine - as long as I have some evidence to support my assertion. Also - this is the wrong forum - if you want to overturn the current scientific position on a subject (the age of the earth for example). You need to go somewhere where you are talking to experts in the field. Publish your work in a recognized journal - and let those folks respond - they really know what they are talking about. I just argue in support of the science that someone else did.
Turgent
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2017
After burning Tyco Brahe at the stake Algore and Papal hoard of National Science Foundation funded scholars (Gray Treefrogs Provide Clues to Climate Change, Feb 2, 2016, based on "EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE ON SPECTRAL PREFERENCES OF FEMALE GRAY TREEFROGS (HYLA VERSICOLOR)" by SARAH C. HUMFELD AND BRICE GRUNERT)* donned their conical crowns, wrapped himself in resplendent robs, and led their sheep to the land of salvation. Each paid full ticket price.

All those who submitted NSF grant proposals to study the validity of the Funded Hoards were advised they need not apply. Like in Animal Farm standards changed as the Pigs took over. The Sheep bleated in praise.

*Beyond any shadow of a doubt tangential Scientific Proof. Facts and evidence. The paper is so advanced that only the high Grand Pooba of the Holy Grail and Algore can read it.

It's all in sport now.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Aug 05, 2017
@turdTROLL denier
*Beyond any shadow of a doubt tangential Scientific Proof
proof of what, exactly, in your delusional mind?

in your world, is this proof that you are correct in your claim when you stated "their [sic] is not enough information to model climate"?

or is this proof that you believe there will be no significant impact by a temp rise?

a quick lesson in science:
1- a singlular study is a point of interest
it takes validation before you make a claim about it's factual validity (because it can be falsified)

2- a singular study about a singular species on a planet with millions of species isn't supporting evidence for any lack of impact claims. it only represents a *potential* lack of impact for that specific species *only*

3- just because you didn't understand the study doesn't mean no one else will

feel free to elaborate further with links and references so that we can establish how far down the rabbit hole you are
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2017
hey @greenonions1

did you notice how turd-y attempted to make a fallacious argument above, then baffle with BS technobabble?

or how he made claims about math, then made statements that were obviously refuted just by observation?
(like his "we can't model climate" BS claim)

this is how the deniers teach their cult followers to attempt to confuse the issue with what appears (in their eyes) to be a technological or factual argument from math and science

turd's dropping all pretense of knowledge, sanity and common sense here: https://phys.org/...ate.html

.

he couldn't pull the wool over the eyes of the laymen, so he instead seeks an echo chamber with the denier trolls because he can't read and refuses to accept reality over his delusional beliefs

ROTFLMFAO

HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2017
Another point which I've just seen made on this topic which Captain Stumpy should be aware of ...

"seems that because of the laws of India where an individual's debts are forgiven if they die (and thus their family will not inherit the debt), when the farmers are driven into debt because they can't afford the costs of Monsanto's seeds and glyphosate which they were forced to use, and their farm is at risk of being taken away, for the sake of their families they commit suicide."
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2017
@idiot eu cult socks hannes/reeve
Another point ... Captain Stumpy should be aware of
for starters, i am far more aware of (and experienced in) Indian culture and the above situation than you are

more to the point: the disagreement between us on this thread (and most other threads) centers around your fallacious claims and
*your inability to comprehend the levels of evidence*
(example: https://www.ncbi....3124652/ )

you have a bad habit of accepting any evidence that confirms your personal bias
i don't care about your bias - only the evidence

i will not accept subjective opinionated articles as evidence, especially from you considering your history

i've made this point repeatedly in this thread alone

and well as all over PO
especially WRT your eu bullsh*t claims

if you are the "researcher" you claim to be you can provide something other than an article or a random quote

- you know, like science or studies?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2017
Re: "the disagreement between us on this thread (and most other threads) centers around your fallacious claims"

No, it seems that what is really going on here is that you disagree with these other people because I'm relaying their claims.

It's your attempt to reduce a complex situation into shortcuts for thinking which truthfully greatly limit your own ability to digest complex situations.

But, everybody here can see that the depth of your analysis does not exceed these superficial shortcuts to thinking you've lazily copied from others online who you seemingly viewed as persuasive.
PTTG
5 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2017
"cooler now than 1000 years ago. Medieval Climate Optimum
cooler now than 2000 years ago. Roman Climate Optimum
cooler now than 4000, 6500 and 8000 years ago. Holocene Climate Optimum."

You are obviously conflating Northern European temperatures with GLOBAL temperatures. This isn't even lying, it's sloppy lying.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Aug 06, 2017
@idiot eu cult socks hannes/reeve TROLL
No, it seems that
1- you cut out an important part of that quote, so let me finish it: and *your inability to comprehend the levels of evidence*

2- those people have opinions and they're untitled to them. it doesn't mean i have to accept them as valid without the requisite empirical evidence that i repeatedly requested

3- opinions that are shared, regardless of how many people share them, are beliefs unless and until you provide empirical evidence demonstrating said opinion is something other than a shared belief

#3 is exactly what i asked for, you illiterate moronic dipsh*t
It's your attempt to reduce a complex situation into shortcuts for thinking
and when you accept opinion as being equivalent to evidence, then you end up being conned or you get proven to be a trolling pseudoscience idiot

i am neither going to be conned by you, nor accept pseudoscience

evidence or STFU already, ya troll
Turgent
1 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2017
Just can't help myself, have to chuckle.

Everyone knows who Michael Mann (High Priest, Pooba, and magician with numbers he will not disclose, and Bovine Secreter). This is from the New Yorker "Michael Mann, the director of the Earth System Science Center, at Pennsylvania State University, declared that he was "not a fan of this sort of doomist framing," and the sociologist Daniel Aldana Cohen described it as "climate disaster porn.""

Michael Mann a climate loon in his own right even attacks Grand Fool and Leader of the Zealots Algore!

I really like the phrase "climate disaster porn." I hope that becomes coined. "Climate porn" should be the new term for Climate Junk science like this article.

Turgent
Aug 07, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Aug 07, 2017
@idiot illiterate turdgent
this is in regard to Algore's new propaganda movie
1- gore is an idiot

2- who cares if he has a movie

3- you keep making the claim of "junk science" but you can't actually prove anything except that you're personally unable to read, and you don't follow the science at all: just the denier rhetoric
(proven above or here: https://phys.org/...te.html)

you don't want to accept anything that doesn't fit your personal bias even when there is copious amounts of scientific evidence behind it

so why do you come to a science news aggregate to spread your personal opinion when it's directly refuted by the science?

is it because you can't get any attention at home?
or because your life is an epic failure?

feel free to elaborate
Turgent
1 / 5 (3) Aug 07, 2017

[At the USDA] A series of emails obtained by The Guardian reveal that officials have been instructed to use the term "weather extremes" instead of "climate change." Being USDA is not a scientific organization Trump must have ordered them to cease and desist from propaganda and use common sense.
Turgent
1 / 5 (3) Aug 07, 2017
Bonehead can't you take a joke or see one.
Captain Stumpy
Aug 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Turgent
1 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2017
Stumpy,

I wasn't addressing you. Had I used "stew pig" (Amish for runt of the litter), would you still have come a running?
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Aug 08, 2017
@turd TROLL
I wasn't addressing you
who cares?
you made an open post that anyone could comment on

if you didn't want any comments you should have either gone away to your echo chamber to preach your stupidity or specified a person you were addressing

and considering the extreme stupidity of the comment, the former would have been the only effective means to not have yourself outed as an ignorant idiot
Had I used "stew pig" (Amish for runt of the litter)
the etymological origin of stew pig isn't confined to just the amish, you idiot

but surely you knew that one, right?

because you're such a scholar and you would never make a false statement that couldn't be supported by evidence... right?

(rhetorical: you've proven above that you're an idiot denier of facts and science)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2017
Oh don't worry they're only brown people it doesn't mean anything <- sarcasm get over it

Every US climate denier is responsible for a growing number of deaths.

This is your legacy. You will be remembered for this and enumerated for this and named for this and reviled for this no matter how long you live and large contingents of those who suffer because you lied will seek to lynch you. Get over it.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.