@newtboy,
"Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out."

I'd argue bored maybe more often than confused. Although if we want to say that most of the problems society faces have their root causes in human nature, I think we can agree.

"I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise"

Here is where I see healthy skepticism distinguishing itself from covering eyes, ears and yelling not listening.

Our understanding of the global climate system is NOT sufficient to make that kind of high confidence claim about specific future outcomes. As you read past the head line and into the supporting papers you find that is the truth underneath. The final summary line you are citing sits atop multiple layers of assumptions and unspecified uncertainties that culminate in a very ephemeral 50% likelyhood disclaimer. It is stating that if all of the cumulative errors and unknowns all more or less don't matter. then we have models that suggest this liklyhood of an outcome...

This however sits atop the following challenges that scientists from different fields and specialities are focusing on improving.
1.Direct measurements of the global energy imbalance and corroboration with Ocean heat content. Currently, the uncertainties in our direct measurements are greater than the actual energy imbalance caused by the CO2 we've emitted. The CERES team measuring this has this plain as day in all their results.
2.Climate models can't get global energy to balance because the unknown or poorly modeled processes in them have a greater impact on the energy imbalance than human CO2. We literally hand tune the poorly known factors to just balance out the energy correctly, regardless of whether that models the given process better or not because the greater run of the model is worthless without a decent energy imbalance. This sits atop the unknowns regarding the actual measured imbalance to hope to simulate. 100% of the modelling teams that discuss their tuning processes again all agree on this.
3. Meta-analysis like you cited usually sit atop both the above, and attempt to rely on the models to get a given 2100 temperature profile, and then make their predictions off of that.

The theme here, is cumulative error and an underlying assumption of 'all other things being equal' for all the cumulative unknowns and errors. You can NOT just come in from all of that, present the absolute worst possible case scenario you can squeeze into and then declare that as the gold standard scientific results which must dictate policy...

Edit:that's very nearly the definition of cherry picking the results you want.

Ok, but don't discount the factual arguments because they are presented with passion. Ignore the emotion and focus on verifying or debunking the facts presented. Because someone on Fox presents their denial argument flatly and dispassionately doesn't make it more correct.

Yes, I agree, but the point was getting people to listen, read, and fully examine the facts rather than accept the, also emotional, arguments without fact or with incorrect, cherry picked, or misrepresented facts that dominate the discussion on both sides, but mostly on the denier side since facts and data do not support them.

That line isn't blurred, it's been pressure washed away. The emotional arguments are nearly all that's out there, the facts are so misrepresented by both sides...oddly both sides minimizing the problem, the right to ignore it for profit, the left to not overwhelm those wanting to make progress by admitting it's too late.
Note, she mentions the thoroughly reported study that said we must stop emissions in 12 (now 10?) years to stay below 1.5c rise actually said we must make that sacrifice to have a 50% chance at that (and goes on to explain why even that is outrageously optimistic since it doesn't take feedbacks and other factors into account and relies on future generations to make not only the sacrifices we aren't willing to make, but also to clean up/sequester the emissions we continue to emit at faster rates daily).
I have zero problem with the emotion of the delivery if the facts are presented clearly and in totality, which she does better than most if not all professional scientific lecturers....sadly.

Ok...i should have said "all but guaranteed under all BUT the most wildly optimistic projections". Got me.

Since, time and time again, the UN "collaborative summary" has had to be revised upwards, and recent measurements show current melting rates it claimed won't be seen until 2075 in Greenland, yes, I have a low opinion of their political/scientific consensus...but the scenarios I mentioned are not the most extreme I can find, just the most likely if you look at data rather than projections based on the conglomeration of incomplete, cherry picked, and non peer reviewed science as well as full scientific studies.

The IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself. Rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources. Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute on a voluntary basis to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments.
They are not the scientific community, they are an international political body chaired by an economist that makes suggestions hopefully based on real honest science, but not necessarily.


There is plenty of consensus that the IPCC estimates are low....NOAA gives up to a 2.5M rise estimate for RCP8.5...the no mitigation, business as usual model we are outpacing already. Based on their numerical system, we're looking at RCP 10+ because emissions are rising, not flatlined, certainly not lowering.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2018/06/15/is-the-ipcc-wrong-about-sea-level-rise/#712580f03ba0

@newtboy said: "a 3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections."

Lies.

The most recent IPCC report(AR5) has their section on sea level rise here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

In the summary for policy makers section under projections they note: " For the period 2081–2100, compared to 1986–2005, global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confidence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from process based models, which give 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.32 to 0.63 m for RCP4.5, 0.33 to 0.63 m for RCP6.0, and 0.45 to 0.82 m for RCP8.5. For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m"

And to give you maximum benefit of doubt they also comment on possible(unlikely) exceeding of stated estimates:" Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribution cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century. "

So, to summarize that, the worst case emissions scenario the IPCC ran(8.5), has in itself a worst case sea level rise ranging 0.5-1.0m, so 1.5 to 3ft. They do note a potential allowance for another few tenths of a meter if unexpected collapse of antarctic ice also occurs.

Let me quote you again: "3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections"

and yet the most recent collaborative summary from the scientific community states under their most pessimistic projections have a 3 ft as the extreme upper limit...

You also did however state "IPCC (again, known for overly conservative estimates)", so it does seem you almost do admit having low opinion of the scientific consensus and prefer cherry picking the most extreme scenarios you can find anywhere and claiming them as the absolute golden standard...

Know who you take advice from....
Just gonna leave this here....

Wiki-
Dr Michael Klaper-In August 1993 Klaper issued a medical certificate for the insurers of two movies that River Phoenix was working on at the time, Dark Blood and Interview With the Vampire. The certificate was signed by both Klaper and Phoenix and stated that Phoenix had never used "LSD, heroin, cocaine, alcohol in excess, or any other narcotic, depressant, stimulant or psychedelic. At the time Phoenix was deeply into the drug scene and died from a drug overdose two months later on October 31, 1993. Phoenix's death resulted in Dark Blood being scrapped, and his role in Interview with the Vampire being replaced by Christian Slater. A total $US5.7 million was paid out by the insurers of both movies as the result of Phoenix's death. Since Phoenix's death, insurance rates have increased significantly, medical certificates are no longer accepted, and actors are required to undergo more rigorous medical examination prior to being insured. [23]

According to oncologist David Gorski "Klaper subscribes to the all-too-common claim that a vegan diet is better than any other and supplements that claim with a belief that undergoing fasts, in which one consumes only water, is a major part of the path to health and wellness". He supports multiple pseudoscience medical claims such as acupuncture, chiropractic, naturopathy and border-line "germ theory denialism". Klaper also gives "highly dubious advice for cancer patients, even claiming that fasting can shrink malignant tumors. Klaper claims that fasts will clear up inflammation, eczema, arthritis and other issues. "The situation" according to Gorski, is "way more complicated than Dr. Klaper paints it". As a surgeon himself, Gorski is appalled that Klaper claims that fasting encourages "faster wound healing" a statement that Gorski calls "Bullshit!". Magician Penn Jillette reported on multiple podcasts that he has lost over 25 pounds on Klaper's water fast diet, Gorski responded that of course he will lose weight on a water-only diet. In Gorski's opinion as a medical doctor himself, "Jillette has fallen "hook, line, and sinker for a whole lot of dietary pseudoscience and promoting it on his show with a credulous interview with someone like Dr. Klaper". Gorski hopes that Jillette will eventually realize "that Dr. Klaper is peddling highly dubious claims (at best). Basically, the product Dr. Klaper is peddling in terms of science is a massive exaggeration based on dubious science, cherry picked cases, and bad evolutionary analogies. Worse, fasts, even when supervised by a physician, are potentially dangerous"

I have 30 Apple trees, 7-10 cherry trees, peach, nectarines, etc. That means I've read through dozens of gardening books trying to learn how to keep them alive and bearing.

My loquacious lexicon, while not always perspicacitious or erudite, is invariably sesquipedalian if not also outright eldritch. Thank my mom, a top notch professional editor, head of Stanford's publishing wing for decades....also, I like to be weird, especially considering what "normal" is today.

Edit:I also enjoy my "lost word of the day" calendars that offer a word or phrase of the day that's been lost to common English.

Of course, you never need background as long as you have an edited soundbite. It's certainly not because background information usually invalidates your position....couldn't be.

Calling out political enemies for not jumping onto the homophobic bus before the suspects were known is the problem. Now that they've been identified, maybe calling them out is appropriate....maybe not, but he's ranting about their first tweets, cherry picked to make his dumb "point".
It's almost like you all are ignorant of the fact that 1/2 the bombs weren't at Christian churches.

Taking note that right wing nationalistic terrorism is on the rise and a worse problem in America is identifying reality, which you have never seemed to have a grasp on.

Pretending Islamic terrorism is a bigger problem in the U.S. than right wing terrorism is a real problem.

Liars who produce partisan conspiracy theory propaganda and sell it to gullible ignoramuses like yourself, who then act on the misinformation, that is the problem that led you and many others out of reality.

Yes, they appear to be Islamic terrorism...but jumping to that conclusion based on nothing has led you astray before, blaming right wing terrorism on Muslims and never retracting the false accusations when facts come to light makes you the worst kind of liar.

Video Title: Slurring guy on the internet defends alcohol consumption, jesus wept lol.

And let's talk about bias for a minute. Nobody is drinking alcohol for the protective effects for the 3 cancers it apparently protects against.Aaron is clearly trying to make himself feel better about his bad habits.

Moderate alcohol is not protective against 3 types of cancers, it's merely associated with it, because people who drink moderately are in a certain demographic, age, class, social/economical, education etc. and the studies that are shown in the nutritionfacts.org video control for these kinds of things.

I'm not sure if you watched the video , but they show research which says that the alcohol industry use the same tactics as big tobacco do (that Aaron is perpetuating) to keep the public confused.

The tactic Aaron is using, is cherry picking a weak study, debunking their shitty method, and then using it to dismiss all other credible evidence. It's effectively a strawman, because he did nothing to address the hundreds of studies with strong evidence.


TL:DR ALCOHOL IS A GROUP 1 CARCINOGEN - IT CAUSES CANCER:

EVERY MEDICAL BODY RECOMMENDS ZERO CONSUMPTION

And what exactly does veganism have to do with alcohol consumption? The vast majority of alcohol is vegan friendly.

Vegans have nothing to gain from decreased alcohol consumption.


----
Also Dr.Greger makes no claims. He simply reads out the research from a world wide scope of researchers, none of which are vegan.

And cherry picking what exactly? He's presented literally 10s of thousands of research papers all from unrelated researchers. And it's not like he's picking out some fringe groups, he's quoting the biggest health organisations in the world.

While it's easy to call him a cherry picker, I challenge anyone to find any credible evidence of cherry picking. I'm yet to hear back from someone over the last 6 years.

And I also challenge you to find an article that isn't funded or tied to the egg/milk/beef/fish industry which claims that eating x animal product is healthy.

Even easier, find an industry funded study which shows the detrimental effects of their own product. You won't, because they are inherently biased - an industry would never publish something that would hurt their bottom line. And no he doesn't ignore or cherry pick around industry funded studies, he exposes their tricks and data manipulation as well. That's not cherry picking, that's proper analysis.

And actually thanks to the freedom of information act, we can see how many studies they hide from us (when they don't like the results), and only publish the ones that suit their revenue centered agenda.

And this is why he's labelled a cherry picker - revenue loss. Broccoli ain't making anyone rich.

Let me put it into perspective:

He did a few video on how those WIFI sensitivity diseases are fake, and the comments are insane - because it's hurting people's income. And this is a pretty niche market, so you can imagine what a billion dollar industry would attempt to do to discredit him. Of course, they never address the research, just him.

From Media Bias website: " Science Based Medicine debunks one by one, many of Dr. Gregers claims. They also claim that NutritionFacts cherry picks information that will always favor veganism. NutritionFacts.org does provide some valuable information and certainly a diet high in fruits and vegetables is preferred, but Dr. Gregers claims are extreme."

Not a consumer of alcohol myself, but this seems about right...

Yeah, any type of cherry picking in studies irks me badly. For instance, I recently got into an internet argument with one of the people who try to claim we didn't land on the moon.

They were using the results of a single study that tentatively said the Van Allen radiation outside of LEO possibly causes higher rates of cardio-vascular disease in astronauts. I then read the study and found out they picked 7 out of the 13 deceased astronauts vs a sample of 100 LEO astronauts, plus the general public's rates of CVD. That set off my alarm bells, so I then looked at the ages the people died at and their actual cause of death on the internet.

Three of the astronauts died at 56, 61, and 61. So basically about a decade early. The other 4 died in their 80's, basically a decade later than average. Out of those 4, they were suffering other conditions and illnesses that might have influenced the final cardiac failure. Sadly no one in the scientific community seems willing to challenge the study, so it stays valid, and the news media posted great big headlines about it when it came out.

Like I told the person I was arguing with, the median age of death of lunar astronauts is 87, even including the three that died early. Even if Van Allen radiation increases CVD likelihood, living to 80 something is pretty damn spectacular, so it really doesn't matter if you die from CVD, cancer, or a stroke.

Indeed....
In this interview Neal Barnard admits he exaggerates and lies to get people to consider going vegan.....
https://www.livekindly.co/dr-neal-barnard-accused-cherry-picking-studies-netflixs-health/

Edit:
Far from the first time, I have yet to hear a vegan doctor who wasn't a bold faced liar about the science. One claimed the WHO had declared eating moderate levels of red meat more dangerous than smoking cigarettes when in fact the study he cited was for high consumption of highly processed cured meats and only said they appear to be carcinogenic and need more study, they did not make a comparison with cigarettes or rate the danger levels, but vegans still make that false claim based on these "doctors'" exaggerated claims because it seems being vegan rots your brain.

That's what I figured. You just got all riled up by something you thought you read and made an argument based off your misunderstanding (intentional or otherwise).

Now you realize you picked an untenable position. You were happy to address the whole argument when you turned it into a straw man that barely resembled what I'd actually said, then once you realized it actually provided context and made sense you decided to focus on the initial vague statement and interpret in the way you chose completely ignoring the context you'd tried to focus on earlier. That is what's called cherry picking.

Now you've been called on for your fallacious arguments, you withdraw.

Nice.

Cherry picked!? Lol.

"One white person is pleasant company; 50 white people are a lynch mob waiting to happen.".... (Blanket racial statement)
Drachen_Jager-
"Not entirely inaccurate, though." (Endorsement)

All the other tripe is attempting to change the subject.
You said the blanket statement about whites is not entirely wrong, in some places it's not entirely wrong, sometimes in some places it's not entirely wrong.....
I'm consistent in saying any blanket statement is wrong, and blanket statements about race are invariably wrong and racist.

There is no debate here. You just keep changing your position so you can argue.
Enjoy

You really like the sound of your own voice, don't you?

1) You cherry picked and then exaggerated my statements.

2) You toned it down a bit, while still doing both of the above.

3) Now you're just cherry picking.

There's no point debating you if you're just going to be disingenuous about it.

Does a group of white people who are purposely excluding racial minorities seem equally, more, or less prone to racially charged violence than a multi-ethnic group?

And before you bring that black group back into the discussion, remember, odds are (at least in the US) they don't have the range of options the whites do. Most of the time, a group of 50 or more black people forms with no other racial groups present because they're pushed into less desirable areas and excluded from the wealthier side of society. I agree that it's possible that group could be prone to violence, but I'd argue that their reasons would stem more from social inequality, rather than racism. You can't make that same argument for the white group.