Impact of Climate Change Is Hitting Home, U.S. Report Finds

[kimmielittle]

Good grief climategate 1, and climategate 2 were proven to be silly. And now climategate3! .

Reference for this claim, please.

Of course the people involved would claim it silly. However, Mr Phil Jones, among others involved, VERIFIED they were real.

I’m hard put to remember when Mr Obama hasn’t “redirected” truth… The Libya attack, for one ].

 

[kimmielittle]

Response to 474,
.

Question: Have you ever figured out the temperature needed to “melt” ice?

 

[lynnvinc]

RE climategate, the most famous line is re a “trick” to “hide the decline,” but this had to do with a method (i.e., trick) to splice two different datasets together – one from tree ring data and one from instrumental data re temps. The “decline” was in the tree ring data after the 1960s, which didn’t jive with the more accurate instrumental data, which actually showed an increase.

I’ve speculated that the warming, which ordinarily is good for plants and trees, may have had some negative impact in this current warming framework. It might be bec warming from other factors in the past has happened more slowly, and also there wouldn’t be as much of a nighttime “blanket effect.” Trees, like rice crops & people, may need cooler nights after hot days to recouperate, and with the current, rapid greenhouse effect enhanced warming, the night min temps are actually increasing faster than the day max temps. I queried Mike Mann about that, but he said he didn’t know, and referred me to some others, who didn’t really know either.

The only reason I have this hunch is bec that was the reason for such a high death rate in Europe in the summer of 2003 (the night temps did not cool down enough as they had in past pre-CC heatwaves). Also bec of an article* I cited in some work I did on food rights & climage change about rice crops in S. Asia and SE Asia; the increasing maximal temps are currently helping rice growth (they figure up to around 2050 when increasing max temps will be more harmful than helpful), but the increasing nightime minimal temps are already harming rice plants and canceling out the helpful daytime temp increases.

I think the same principle might apply to trees, as well.

So there you have it – Climategate in its gory details re its most horrific lines.

---

*Welch, J., J. R. Vincent, M. Auffhammer, P. F. Moya, A. Dobermann, and D. Dawe. 2010. “Rice Yields in Tropical/Subtropical Asia Exhibit Large but Opposing Sensitivities to Minimum and Maximum Temperatures.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(33): 14562-14567.

 

[kimmielittle]

RE climategate, the most famous line is re a “trick” to “hide the decline,” but this had to do with a method (i.e., trick) to splice two different datasets together – one from tree ring data and one from instrumental data re temps. The “decline” was in the tree ring data after the 1960s, which didn’t jive with the more accurate instrumental data, which actually showed an increase.

That is Mr Manns explanation. And it doesn’t address the REAL TRICK.

grafting the thermometer onto a reconstruction is not actually the original “Mike’s Nature trick”! Mann did not fully graft the thermometer on a reconstruction, but he stopped the smoothed series in their end years. The trick is more sophisticated, and was uncovered by UC over here. climateaudit.org/2007/05/11/the-maestro-of-mystery/

When smoothing these time series, the Team had a problem: actual reconstructions “diverge” from the instrumental series in the last part of 20th century. For instance, in the original hockey stick (ending 1980) the last 30-40 years of data points slightly downwards. In order to smooth those time series one needs to “pad” the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards — a divergence. So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC’s figure (violet original, green without “Mike’s Nature trick”).

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/

Graphs at links:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones

DISHONEST SCIENCE!
'“So there you have it – Climategate in its gory details re its most horrific lines.” IN JUST ONE EMAIL…

 

[wittgenstein]

kimmielittle,
Response to post 480, and its quote,“Reference for that claim”? YOU! You said,"we are now in climategate3! " ( post 476)
Actually, I love your surreal sillyness. But being serious does have value!

 

[kimmielittle]

Is Mr Mann an honest broker for science?

Back in December 2004 John Finn asked about “the divergence” in Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick” -thread of RealClimate.org.

Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least.

mike’s response speaks for itself.

No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.

Here he denies even doing it.
You judge!

 

[wittgenstein]

Answer 484 first. Of course you will not!
Hockey stick? YAWN! Already explained. Sorry, scrolling back is too much work for lazy conspiracy enthusiasts.

 

[kimmielittle]

Climategate 3.0: Wigley accuses IPCC and lead authors of ‘dishonest presentations of model results’; Accuses Mann of deception; Mann admits

Posted on March 14, 2013 by Steve Milloy | Leave a comment
Mann: “Its (sic) hard to imagine what sort of comparison wouldn’t be deceptive.”
The e-mails are below.
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 18:06, Michael Mann wrote:

Hi Tom,

thanks for the comments. well, ok. but this is the full CMIP3
ensemble, so at least the plot is sampling the range of choices
regarding if and how indirect effects are represented, what the cloud
radiative feedback & sensitivity is, etc. across the modeling
community. I’m not saying that these things necessarily cancel out
(after all, there is an interesting and perhaps somewhat disturbing
compensation between indirect aerosol forcing and sensitivity across
the CMIP3 models that defies the assumption of independence), but if
showing the full spread from CMIP3 is deceptive, its hard to imagine
what sort of comparison wouldn’t be deceptive (your point re MAGICC
notwithstanding),

perhaps Gavin has some further comments on this (it is his plot after
all),

mike

On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:

Mike,

The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
runs with PCM look as though they match observations — but the
match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
climate sensitivity — compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
harsh)
view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use
results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
forcing assumptions/uncertainties.

Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++

Michael Mann wrote:

thanks Tom,
I’ve taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put
together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he
prepared for an earlier RealClimate post. see:
realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktonsdeliberate-
manipulation/). It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home
Tom’s point below. We’re planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be
nice to see the Sep. HadCRU numbers first,

mike
On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote:

Dear all,
At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the
recent
lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to
look at
the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic
trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second
is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the
observed data.
Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The
second
method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
These sums complement Kevin’s energy work.
Kevin says … “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack
of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I
do not
agree with this.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global
warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have
broken records the past two days for the coldest days on
record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days
was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the
previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F
and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game
was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below
freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change
planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability/, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]

(A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at
the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data
published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there
should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
Our observing system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People
like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly
correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The
PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO
index became positive in September for first time since Sept
2007. see

 

[Farsight001]

Reference for this claim, please.

Of course the people involved would claim it silly. However, Mr Phil Jones, among others involved, VERIFIED they were real.

I’m hard put to remember when Mr Obama hasn’t “redirected” truth… The Libya attack, for one ].

They verified that the E-MAILS were real, not the fraud and lies. The contents of the e-mails, despite the ranting and raving of the media, were rather mundane in reality. This is revealed when you string e-mails together and read the whole conversations, instead of just picking one phrase from one e-mail and blasting it all over the television like the media did. So the reference for the claim is the e-mails themselves. But instead of looking at the evidence and letting it lead you where it goes, you pre-decided and now ignore what doesn’t agree with you. Try pouring through the e-mails sometime.

What you guys don’t seem to understand is that we are sitting on the brink of destruction right now. There have been five mass extinction events in the history of life on earth. Many scientists are now arguing that we have already begun the 6th. Corals are dying out all over the planet and will be completely extinct in the next 20 to 50 years if we continue the way we are going with pollution. Coral survived every mass extinction event in the past, but it is not going to survive this one because its worse than any one before it. We are seeing 1000 fold extinction rates of species living today than has been regular in the past. Bees are disappearing, and with them will go the flowers and other plants they pollinate, and then all the animals that feed on those plants, and then all the animals that feed on those animals and can’t find a new source of food. Several species of butterflies are fading as well. It may take 10,000 years, but that is precisely the problem because it takes much longer than a single lifetime to occur, the uneducated cannot or will not or simply refuse to see it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Answer 484 first. Of course you will not!
Hockey stick? YAWN! Already explained. Sorry, scrolling back is too much work for lazy conspiracy enthusiasts.

Saying this in a friendly way, we’re not supposed to call each other names on here. The moderators would sanction you if they saw you do it.

The thing that gets to me about this whole debate is that the supporters of MMGW (which I’m not) go all strident and predict the end of the world based on their own fervor and a plethora of scientists of one kind and another as well as academics.

On the other hand, there are scientists and academics who challenge all that, and we have seen the competing charts and graphs on here many times.

There have been all sorts of charges leveled. This group jinked the numbers, that group is funded by oil companies, this one is a governmental hack, that one is an industry hack. On and on.

Likely the skeptics will remain skeptics and the believers will remain believers, at least until we all fry or go year after year without frying.

But I think the really big question is what anybody ought to do about it, if anything. Lynnvinc, for example, talks about saving energy in what sound to me like rather modest ways; turn off the lights if you’re not using them, don’t drive a gas hog, use solar if you can (understanding she lives in the Rio Grande Valley), but does not seem to be pushing draconian solutions, let alone the “political” solutions that are really just money transfers.
I, a “denier” have even added some things that could be useful in other ways but would incidentally seqester carbon, like enhanced encouragement of certain kinds of forestry, use of charcoal in agriculture, increasing albedo in pastures through some fairly simple processes that have other benefits.

On the other hand, some really are pushing draconian solutions. Stop all use of coal. No Keystone pipeline, stop fracking, build zillion dollar railroads at public expense, require that cars get 50 mpg or more, outlaw internal combustion engines altogether. Stop all the chemical fertilizers and intensive farming. Ban cows. Absolutely mandate solar and wind power sources instead of fossil fuel sources of any kind. Really tough measures that could create substantial misery.

Now, everybody knows that the industrializing world, principally China and India, are not going to do anything to ameliorate even toxins that have been long outlawed here, let alone ameliorate carbon emissions. Since China in particular has already surpassed the U.S. in emissions and is on a fast track to create even more, it’s pretty clear that what people in the U.S. do is not going to change things in any significant way. But all the same, those who believe in MMGW seem to think we should anyway because it’s “what we can do”. I get that.

So, I ask Wittgenstein and any other MMGW believer what, exactly, they want anybody in this country to do about the MMGW they believe in? Not in generalities. Not in platitudes. Precise measures. Then, seeing those, we who are not convinced can see whether their recommendations are useful without reference to MMGW particularly (like turning off the lights, biochar, etc) or whether the human cost is such that we simply ought to take our chances, seeing as how there really is disagreement among scientists about MMGW no matter how many charts or graphs one side produces or how many “scientist” votes one puts in the balance.

I’ll be interested to see how they picture the world they want us all to live in.

 

[Ridgerunner]

They verified that the E-MAILS were real, not the fraud and lies. The contents of the e-mails, despite the ranting and raving of the media, were rather mundane in reality. This is revealed when you string e-mails together and read the whole conversations, instead of just picking one phrase from one e-mail and blasting it all over the television like the media did. So the reference for the claim is the e-mails themselves. But instead of looking at the evidence and letting it lead you where it goes, you pre-decided and now ignore what doesn’t agree with you. Try pouring through the e-mails sometime.

What you guys don’t seem to understand is that we are sitting on the brink of destruction right now. There have been five mass extinction events in the history of life on earth. Many scientists are now arguing that we have already begun the 6th. Corals are dying out all over the planet and will be completely extinct in the next 20 to 50 years if we continue the way we are going with pollution. Coral survived every mass extinction event in the past, but it is not going to survive this one because its worse than any one before it. We are seeing 1000 fold extinction rates of species living today than has been regular in the past. Bees are disappearing, and with them will go the flowers and other plants they pollinate, and then all the animals that feed on those plants, and then all the animals that feed on those animals and can’t find a new source of food. Several species of butterflies are fading as well. It may take 10,000 years, but that is precisely the problem because it takes much longer than a single lifetime to occur, the uneducated cannot or will not or simply refuse to see it.

This has all been debated back and forth on CAF for what seems like millenia now.

Let’s see your practical solutions.

And by the way, just because I’m not a MMGW believer, it does not mean I’m uneducated. Okay? There’s no need for that kind of thing on here.

 

[LisaA]

Saying this in a friendly way, we’re not supposed to call each other names on here. The moderators would sanction you if they saw you do it.

The thing that gets to me about this whole debate is that the supporters of MMGW (which I’m not) go all strident and predict the end of the world based on their own fervor and a plethora of scientists of one kind and another as well as academics.

On the other hand, there are scientists and academics who challenge all that, and we have seen the competing charts and graphs on here many times.

There have been all sorts of charges leveled. This group jinked the numbers, that group is funded by oil companies, this one is a governmental hack, that one is an industry hack. On and on.

Likely the skeptics will remain skeptics and the believers will remain believers, at least until we all fry or go year after year without frying.

But I think the really big question is what anybody ought to do about it, if anything. Lynnvinc, for example, talks about saving energy in what sound to me like rather modest ways; turn off the lights if you’re not using them, don’t drive a gas hog, use solar if you can (understanding she lives in the Rio Grande Valley), but does not seem to be pushing draconian solutions, let alone the “political” solutions that are really just money transfers.
I, a “denier” have even added some things that could be useful in other ways but would incidentally seqester carbon, like enhanced encouragement of certain kinds of forestry, use of charcoal in agriculture, increasing albedo in pastures through some fairly simple processes that have other benefits.

On the other hand, some really are pushing draconian solutions. Stop all use of coal. No Keystone pipeline, stop fracking, build zillion dollar railroads at public expense, require that cars get 50 mpg or more, outlaw internal combustion engines altogether. Stop all the chemical fertilizers and intensive farming. Ban cows. Absolutely mandate solar and wind power sources instead of fossil fuel sources of any kind. Really tough measures that could create substantial misery.

Now, everybody knows that the industrializing world, principally China and India, are not going to do anything to ameliorate even toxins that have been long outlawed here, let alone ameliorate carbon emissions. Since China in particular has already surpassed the U.S. in emissions and is on a fast track to create even more, it’s pretty clear that what people in the U.S. do is not going to change things in any significant way. But all the same, those who believe in MMGW seem to think we should anyway because it’s “what we can do”. I get that.

So, I ask Wittgenstein and any other MMGW believer what, exactly, they want anybody in this country to do about the MMGW they believe in? Not in generalities. Not in platitudes. Precise measures. Then, seeing those, we who are not convinced can see whether their recommendations are useful without reference to MMGW particularly (like turning off the lights, biochar, etc) or whether the human cost is such that we simply ought to take our chances, seeing as how there really is disagreement among scientists about MMGW no matter how many charts or graphs one side produces or how many “scientist” votes one puts in the balance.

I’ll be interested to see how they picture the world they want us all to live in.

Ridge thank you for weighing in! Yours is truly the question since dueling scientists will never convince everyone to their side. But what is to be done, what has been done, and what conceivable could be done that would produce an appropriate cost/benefit ratio?

As you noted the “solutions” of the most ardent supporters of climate change are either government regulations, fines, or taxes or an unlikely turn back of the clock (freeze in the dark) regarding use of power.

Lisa

 

[lynnvinc]

That is Mr Manns explanation. And it doesn’t address the REAL TRICK.

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/

Graphs at links:

DISHONEST SCIENCE!
'“So there you have it – Climategate in its gory details re its most horrific lines.” IN JUST ONE EMAIL…

As I said, the decline was in the temps the tree ring proxy data indicated, not in the temps the instrumental data indicated.

IOW, for some reason tree rings don’t reflect temps as well after 1960, and I think it might be because of the reason I outlined above.

It was the scientific honest thing to do to use instrumental data for the last part of the 20th c, which are the more accurate data. The only reason tree ring data (and other proxy data, which are varied and many and robustly support end-20th c warming) is bec we don’t have really good instrumental data in the past. If we had, then we wouldn’t need to use proxy data at all.

The only dishonest thing was in not specifying in the chart (tho it was in the article) that there had been a splicing of two different types of data. That doesn’t really bother me at all, since Mike’s work came out after AGW had been established, and his work was only “icing on the cake,” so to speak. IOW, you could throw out all his work, and AGW still stand strong, both in terms of theory and data.

Furthermore, even if the MWP had been as warm as today, that does not disprove the warming of today, AND it has been a lot warmer at other times, like the end-Permian great warming of some 6C (high end projection for 2100), when 90%+ of life on earth was wiped out.

Why oh why oh why do y’all want to risk such catastrophe. It is just beyond comprehension.

 

[lynnvinc]

Ridge thank you for weighing in! Yours is truly the question since dueling scientists will never convince everyone to their side. But what is to be done, what has been done, and what conceivable could be done that would produce an appropriate cost/benefit ratio?

As you noted the “solutions” of the most ardent supporters of climate change are either government regulations, fines, or taxes or an unlikely turn back of the clock (freeze in the dark) regarding use of power.

Lisa

I don’t think fees will help if denialists are determined to emit high levels of GHGs. Even others who are not aware or don’t care are not going to change their behavior. We are much to much a rich country.

The only solution is if people voluntarily reduce their GHGs – and that can be done in sensible ways that save money. I’m not even advocating taking public transportation, like Pope Francis, or living in a small apartment, like Pope Francis.

If one who sincerely wants to lower their GHG emissions (and concomitant pollution) prays to God, God will surely help, and help in ways that really surprise one, leaving one singing, “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all things will be added unto you. Alleluia, allleluia.” Guaranteed!

 

[Farsight001]

This has all been debated back and forth on CAF for what seems like millenia now.

Let’s see your practical solutions.

I provided some previously.

And by the way, just because I’m not a MMGW believer, it does not mean I’m uneducated. Okay? There’s no need for that kind of thing on here.

Does it mean you can’t have a college degree or even a doctorate? Of course not. But it does mean you are uneducated in regards to global warming.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I provided some previously. **You mean this?

“Actually, what the environmentalists are pushing towards and promoting in large amounts is greater efficiency in energy usage. Little gadgets in cell phones that charge them as you walk, reservoirs for snow to help cool buildings without using energy-costly air conditioning, building roofs tilted to catch the sun more in winter and less in summer, etc. As usual with the media, what they focus on and what they say is far from what the experts are trying to get them to focus on.”

“little gadgets”, snow reservoirs that (we are to assume) will stay frozen into the summer, tilted roofs (virtually all of which are anyway)

Is that all there is to offer as practical solutions to MMGW?

**

Does it mean you can’t have a college degree or even a doctorate? Of course not. But it does mean you are uneducated in regards to global warming.

I am not one to report people who do not obey the rules to the moderators. But I could make an exception if you call me uneducated one more time.

 

[LisaA]

I provided some previously.

Does it mean you can’t have a college degree or even a doctorate? Of course not. But it does mean you are uneducated in regards to global warming.

You mean Ridgerunner doesn’t share your opinion or ideology regarding global warming. As has been demonstrated repeatedly on this thread, it’s a matter of dueling scientists with widely differing conclusions. Your adherence to one camp doesn’t make you any more educated than someone who has found scientists with a different conclusion equally credible.

BTW along with Ridge’s question regarding what solutions you suggest, can you also indicate at what point this catastrophe will take place?

Lisa

 

[Farsight001]

I am not one to report people who do not obey the rules to the moderators. But I could make an exception if you call me uneducated one more time.

Its not an insult to be reported in the first place. If you do not have education in a subject, you are, by definition, uneducated. I have no formal education in regards to criminal justice or law. Therefore, I am uneducated in that regard. You have no formal education in regards to global warming, so you are likewise. If you really take issue with people making neutral and accurate statements about you, then you should probably recluse yourself from the internet for your own sake.

 

[Farsight001]

You mean Ridgerunner doesn’t share your opinion or ideology regarding global warming.

No, I really don’t. Just as a person who is adamant that the definition of “inflammable” is “not flammable”, Ridgerunner is simply incorrect. What you guys don’t seem to understand is that the game is over and the ship has sailed. Global warming is as real and pretty much has as much evidence to support it as gravity does. So when someone argues against it, all they’re really trying to do from our perspective is try to convince us that “inflammable” means not flammable when it means the opposite, and in doing so, revealing rather solidly that they don’t understand.

As has been demonstrated repeatedly on this thread, it’s a matter of dueling scientists with widely differing conclusions.

No, actually, it hasn’t. I have however seen several people from the denial camp cite sources that support global warming, but which they have clearly horribly misunderstood.

BTW along with Ridge’s question regarding what solutions you suggest, can you also indicate at what point this catastrophe will take place?

Already answered. If you’re looking for a specific day, you’re not going to get one. As I said, it could take thousands of years to come to completion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Its not an insult to be reported in the first place. If you do not have education in a subject, you are, by definition, uneducated. I have no formal education in regards to criminal justice or law. Therefore, I am uneducated in that regard. You have no formal education in regards to global warming, so you are likewise. If you really take issue with people making neutral and accurate statements about you, then you should probably recluse yourself from the internet for your own sake.

As has been established on here previously, there is no such thing as “formal education” in global warming. There are scientists in various fields who have written their opinions, from the points of view of the varying disciplines in which they are educated. Some are from this background educationally, and some are from that. But it is not a single, unified scientific discipline.

And you know nothing at all about me. You don’t know whether I have a PhD in any of the disciplines the various writers about global warming have, or whether I didn’t make it out of the third grade. You do not know what I have read and what i have not read; what I have studied or what I have not studied. You do not know what I have experienced and what I have not experienced.

You are obviously fairly new here, and undoubtedly missed out on the many threads that appeared here on the subject over the last years; the graphs pointing up and the ones pointing down, the ones correlated with this and the ones correlated with that. It’s a shame, really, but everybody here has missed some things of value. One could not have read all of that and failed to come away with the conclusion that it is a debated topic with reputable people holding opposite views based on the “science” of it as they saw it.

But rather than get into chart comparisons and engage in counting the noses of scientists; something that has been done on CAF ad nauseam, I asked something fairly simple; something of which people quite clearly have some interest and concern, something that was the whole point of what I was saying. What precise measures do believers in MMGW such as yourself (and others on here), believe people should adopt a) voluntarily or b) by government fiat? Perhaps, other than the offering you made which I mentioned above, you prefer not to do that. You could have simply said so.

If, however, it seems preferable to speak to others in a disparaging manner, it probably isn’t me who should seek another site on which to hold forth. On the other hand, I think most here would affirm that those who exhibit reasonably good manners generally find CAF a congenial forum for their points of view.

Oh, and isn’t the word “recuse”?

I really do hate to leave this for now, but I must. I will undoubtedly see the remaining posts in this thread at a later time.