Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Cranky Uncle: a game building resilience against climate misinformation

Posted on 24 August 2022 by John Cook

This is a blog post version of John Cook's paper "Cranky Uncle: a game building resilience against climate misinformation" published in the Austrian periodical Plus Lucis for educators in 2021. We are re-posting it here with their permission to make translated versions readily available.

Misinformation about climate change does damage in multiple ways. It causes people to believe wrong things [1], polarizes the public [2], and reduces trust in scientists [3]. Climate misinformation reduces support for climate action [1], delaying policies to mitigate climate change [4]. One of the most insidious aspects of misinformation is it can cancel out accurate information [5, 6]. When people are presented with fact and myth but don’t know how to resolve the conflict between the two, the risk is they disengage and believe neither.

Consequently, an effective way to counter misinformation is to help people resolve the conflict between facts and myths. This is achieved by inoculating the public against the misleading rhetorical techniques used in misinformation. Inoculation theory is a branch of psychological research that applies the concept of vaccination to knowledge [7]. Just as exposing people to a weakened form of a virus develops resistance to the real virus, similarly, exposing people to a weakened form of misinformation builds immunity to real-world misinformation. Inoculation has been found to be effective in neutralizing misinformation casting doubt on the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming [2, 6]. Inoculation messages are also long lasting [8]

There are two main inoculation approaches – fact-based and logic-based [9]. Fact-based inoculations expose how the misinformation is wrong by explaining the facts. Logic-based inoculations explain the rhetorical techniques or logical fallacies used by the myth to distort the facts. While both methods are effective in neutralizing misinformation [10, 11], the logic-based approach is particularly attractive because it works across topics. In one experiment, when participants were inoculated against a rhetorical technique used by the tobacco industry, they were no longer misled by the same technique used in climate misinformation [2]. Logic-based inoculation is like a universal vaccine against misinformation.


Figure 1. The FLICC taxonomy, organising the five categories of science denial techniques.

Identifying the techniques of denial requires a framework that organises and describes the misleading fallacies found in misinformation. A useful framework is the five techniques of science denial: fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectations, cherry picking, and conspiracy theories [12]. This framework, summarized with the acronym FLICC, has been subsequently expanded over the years into a more detailed taxonomy of rhetorical techniques, logical fallacies, and conspiratorial traits (see Figure 1, adapted from [13]).

Parallel argumentation is a powerful technique for explaining the misleading techniques of misinformation. This involves transplanting the flawed logic from a fallacious argument into an analogous situation, often an extreme or absurd one [14]. This approach has strong pedagogical value, expressing abstract logical concepts in concrete, relatable terms [15]. By focusing on reasoning errors, parallel argumentation debunks misinformation while sidestepping the need to provide complicated explanations. It is also a technique conducive to entertaining and humorous applications. Figure 2 shows some examples of parallel arguments in cartoon form, adapted from the book Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change [16].



Figure 2. Two examples of parallel argumentation in cartoon form. (a) The argument “cold weather disproves global warming” and a parallel argument illustrating the anecdote fallacy. (b) The argument “climate has changed naturally in the past so what’s happening now must be natural” and a parallel argument illustrating the single cause fallacy. Click for larger images!

Generally, humor in science communication offers a number of benefits. Cartoons about climate change provoke mirth, which mediates greater support for climate action [17]. Humorous messages are more engaging, showing the greatest impact with people who are disengaged from issues like climate change [18]. Using humor to explain a serious topic such as climate change with humor makes the issue less threatening and more accessible [19]. People respond to humorous messages with less counterarguing [20].

However, humor can be a double-edged sword as some benefits come with potential drawbacks. While humor makes climate change less intimidating, people also come away less concerned about the issue relative to a serious climate message [21]. Similarly, humorous messages may lead to less counterarguing but they’re also perceived as less informative than serious messages, even when containing the same information [22].

Cartoon parallel arguments have been shown to be effective in debunking misinformation about vaccines [23] and climate change [24]. Using mediation analysis with eye-tracking data, humorous cartoons were found to be successful in discrediting misinformation because people spent more time paying attention to the cartoons [24]. This research shows that using cartoon parallel arguments are an effective way to deliver explanations of logical fallacies and inoculate people against misinformation.

One limitation of logic-based inoculation is that it depends on building resilience by increasing critical thinking, a cognitively effortful activity. The vast majority of our thinking is effortless, fast thinking (e.g., mental shortcuts or heuristics) rather than effortful, slow thinking (e.g., critically assessing the logical validity of misinformation), an aspect of psychology explored in the book Fast and Slow Thinking [25]. This reliance on heuristics makes people vulnerable to logical fallacies which can be superficially persuasive. However, Kahnemann also discusses a third type of thinking—expert heuristics. When a person practises a task a sufficient number of times, the slow thinking processes required to complete the difficult task evolve into fast thinking responses.

Games offer engaging tools for incentivizing people to repeatedly perform misinformation-spotting tasks in order to build up their critical thinking skills. Games that are fun to engage with while serving a useful educational purpose are known as serious games [26]. Gameplay elements such as achievement rewards offer learning incentives [27], while leaderboards and player-to-player features add social and community elements [28]. In the case of misinformation, sequences of quizzes where players repeatedly identify fallacies in misleading arguments offer the potential to convert the slow thinking process of analyzing the logic of an argument into easier, faster heuristics.

Games are already being explored as a tool for building resilience against misinformation, using an approach known as active inoculation [29]. Typically, inoculation interventions are passive, with messages received in a one-way direction from communicator to audience. In contrast, active inoculation involves participants in an interactive inoculation process - having them learn the techniques of science denial by ironically learning to use the misleading techniques themselves. Digital games have already been applied in games targeting fake news [30] and misinformation undermining democracy [31].

The Cranky Uncle game adopts an active inoculation approach, where a Cranky Uncle cartoon character mentors players to learn the techniques of science denial. Cranky Uncle is a free game available on iPhone ( and Android ( smartphones as well as web browsers ( The player’s aim is to become a “cranky uncle”—a science denier who skillfully applies a variety of logically flawed argumentation techniques to reject the conclusions of the scientific community. By adopting the mindset of a cranky uncle, the player develops a deeper understanding of science denial techniques, thus acquiring the knowledge to resist misleading persuasion attempts in the future.


Figure 3: Sample of “trail” screens, explaining techniques of science denial. (a) Denial techniques. (b) Explanation of “Overriding suspicion”. (c) Explanation of “Overriding suspicion ctd. (d) Final screen of “Overriding suspicion” trail.

One danger of serious games is players can lose motivation if they see the game as all education and no fun. By featuring an ornery cartoon character as a mentor and humorous examples of logical fallacies (e.g., parallel arguments in cartoon form), this pitfall is avoided. Humor is employed throughout the trails, with Cranky Uncle’s prickly personality shining through. Fun is one of the key predictors of players’ willingness to play a game again [32]. In the Cranky Uncle game, humor is an integral part of the learning process, with cartoon analogies providing not only humor but also instructive illustrations of fallacious logic

Explanations of denial techniques form the spine of the game (Figure 3a). Each denial technique is explained in a “trail”, a sequence of screens featuring text explanations (Figure 3b, 3c) and cartoon examples of logical fallacies. Gameplay elements such as point accumulation (Figure 3d) and leveling up (Figure 4d) provide regular feedback, incentivizing the player to continue deeper into the game and develop greater resilience against misinformation.

After completing trails, players practise their newly acquired critical thinking knowledge by completing quiz questions. The game features three types of questions. The first type are true/false questions (Figure 4a)—either false statements containing a logical fallacy or inherently true statements (e.g., tautologies such as “people are dying who never died before”). The second question type asks the player to identify a specific fallacy from several false statements (Figure 4b). The third question type presents a false statement (in text or cartoon form) with the player identifying the denial technique from four options (Figure 4c).

Games show the greatest player outcomes when they combine a variety of achievement notifications [27]. The Cranky Uncle game provides achievement notifications in a number of ways. Players are regularly shown their points progress throughout the game (Figures 3d) and given immediate feedback in response to correct or incorrect quiz answers. When a player levels up, they are shown a pop-up informing them of their new cranky mood (e.g., “peevish”, Figure 4d).

Figure 4

Figure 4: Examples of quiz questions and achievement notification. (a) True/false. (b) Fallacy examples. (c) Multiple fallacies. (d) Notification when a player levels up.

While the Cranky Uncle game can be played by any member of the public with a smartphone or access to a web browser, arguably its greatest social impact will be as a classroom activity. Critical thinking and resilience against misinformation are skills required across many grade levels and subjects. Currently, educators are using the game in classes from middle school to grad school at university level, across subjects as diverse as biology, environmental science, English, and philosophy. To provide additional educational scaffolding, a Teachers’ Guide to Cranky Uncle was published, offering a number of critical thinking activities to complement and reinforce the game’s content [33],

In recent years, misinformation has been an ever-present problem, affecting all aspects of society. Amplified by social media platforms and exacerbated by global developments such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the problem is complex, ubiquitous, and interconnected. Holistic solutions are required that can be scaled up to address the immensity of the challenge—interdisciplinary projects combining science, technology, and the arts. Art enables communicators to package scientific information in entertaining formats that engage the attention of disengaged audiences. Technology enables the dissemination of interactive games at a scale commensurate with the problem. Science provides evidence-based approaches for addressing misinformation such as research into logic-based inoculation and cartoon parallel arguments. The Cranky Uncle game brings together these diverse threads, synthesizing research into inoculation, critical thinking, and science humor, wrapped in a technological package that makes critical thinking content accessible to players in an engaging, interactive format.


[1] Ranney & Clark (2016). Climate Change Conceptual Change: Scientific Information Can Transform Attitudes. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 49-75.
[2] Cook et al. (2017). Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLOS ONE, 12, e0175799.
[3] Biddle & Leuschner (2015). Climate skepticism and the manufacture of doubt: can dissent in science be epistemically detrimental? European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5(3), 261-278.
[4] Lewandowsky (2020). Climate change, disinformation, and how to combat it. Annual Review of Public Health, 42.
[5] McCright et al. (2016). Examining the effectiveness of climate change frames in the face of a climate change denial counter-frame. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 76-97.
[6] van der Linden et al. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1, 1600008.
[7] Compton et al. (2016). Persuading others to avoid persuasion: Inoculation theory and resistant health attitudes. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 122.
[8] Maertens et al. (2020). Combatting climate change misinformation: Evidence for longevity of inoculation and consensus messaging effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, 101455.
[9] Banas & Miller (2013). Inducing resistance to conspiracy theory propaganda: Testing inoculation and metainoculation strategies. Human Communication Research, 39(2), 184-207.
[10] Vraga et al. (2020). Testing the effectiveness of correction placement and type on Instagram. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(4), 632-652.
[11] Schmid & Betsch (2019). Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 931-939.
[12] Hoofnagle, M. (2007, April 30). Hello Scienceblogs. Denialism Blog. Retrieved from
[13] Cook (2021). Deconstructing Climate Science Denial. In Holmes, D. & Richardson, L. M. (Eds.) Edward Elgar Research Handbook in Communicating Climate Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
[14] Cook et al. (2018). Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors. Environmental Research Letters, 13, 024018.
[15] Juthe (2008). Refutation by parallel argument. Argumentation, 23(2), 133-169.
[16] Cook, J. (2020). Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change: How to Understand and Respond to Climate Science Deniers. New York, NY: Citadel Press.
[17] McKasy, M., Cacciatore, M. A., Yeo, S. K., Zhang, J. S., Cook, J., & Olaleye, R. M. (2021, August). The Impact of Emotion and Humor on Support for Global Warming Action. Annual Conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC), New Orleans, LA (virtual).
[18] Brewer & McKnight (2015). Climate as comedy: The effects of satirical television news on climate change perceptions. Science Communication, 37(5), 635-657.
[19] Boykoff & Osnes (2019). A laughing matter? Confronting climate change through humor. Political Geography, 68, 154-163.
[20] Nabi et al. (2007). All joking aside: A serious investigation into the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages. Communication Monographs, 74(1), 29-54.
[21] Bore & Reid (2014). Laughing in the face of climate change? Satire as a device for engaging audiences in public debate. Science Communication, 36(4), 454-478.
[22] Skurka et al. (2018). Pathways of influence in emotional appeals: Benefits and tradeoffs of using fear or humor to promote climate change-related intentions and risk perceptions. Journal of Communication, 68(1), 169-193.
[23] Kim et al. (2020a). An Eye Tracking Approach to Understanding Misinformation and Correction Strategies on Social Media: The Mediating Role of Attention and Credibility to Reduce HPV Vaccine Misperceptions. Health Communication, 1-10.
[24] Vraga et al. (2019). Testing logic-based and humor-based corrections for science, health, and political misinformation on social media. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 63, 393-414.
[25] Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
[26] Girard et al. (2012). Serious games as new educational tools: How effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 207-219.
[27] Blair et al. (2016). Understanding the role of achievements in game-based learning. International Journal of Serious Games, 3(4), 47-56.
[28] Paavilainen et al. (2017). A review of social features in social network games. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association, 3(2).
[29] Roozenbeek & van der Linden (2018). The fake news game: actively inoculating against the risk of misinformation. Journal of Risk Research, 1-11.
[30] Roozenbeek & van der Linden (2019). Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 12.
[31] Roozenbeek & van der Linden (2020). Breaking Harmony Square: A game that “inoculates” against political misinformation. The Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review
[32] Imbellone et al. (2015). Serious Games for Mobile Devices: the InTouch Project Case Study. International Journal of Serious Games, 2(1).
[33] Cook, J. (2021b, January 27). The Teachers’ Guide to Cranky Uncle.


Related Publications
Published in 2022:  The cranky uncle game—combining humor and gamification to build student resilience against climate misinformation (PDF)

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 29:

  1. Procter and Gamble and other large companies who want to persuade people to their point of view spend billions on ads to make the brand name familiar, build good associations with it, and convey the benefits you might get from buying it.

    This is a very different approach.  No brand name, no positive associations, no benefits.  Find people with low critical thinking skills, give them a game designed to perhaps improve their skills, perhaps innoculate them against specific skeptic arguments.

    Does it work, for whatever definition of work it aims at?

    0 0
  2. " benefits." 

    I suppose you're thinking of tangible, material personal benefits that sit in a driveway or a bank account, Jason. 

    There are other benefits we can seek, such as not embarassing ourselves by being gullible chumps, soft putty in the hands of demagogues etc.

    Does it work? That begs another question: did you read the article?

    Inoculation has been found to be effective in neutralizing misinformation casting doubt on the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming [2, 6]. Inoculation messages are also long lasting [8]

    Those numbers are called "citations," and they lead to "references," foundational support for claims of which we may not be familiar. Here the complete list of references accompanies the article directly inline. 

    As you become more familiar with scientific literature, you'll understand the value of citations and references. Here you can practice by actually reading Cook's article. When you run into something not plainly obvious to a reader versed in a paper's topic discipline (for the rest of us such as "the sun rises in the east") there'll generally be a supporting citation.

    If you see a claim made that is controversial or in doubt and is not supported or that a citation is misapplied, that's when things become potentially interesting, assuming you can articulate the problem. 

    0 0
  3. My questions remain, Doug. The in-vitro studies based on recruited panels are one thing, a game app is another. Can it gain any traction with people who aren't being obliged to use it?  Is it supposed to?  To what extent does it convert versus filter for the already converted? Does it sharpen critical thinking skills generally or on the contrary build commitment to a particular point of view regardless of subsequent input? Which is the goal? How often does it backfire, triggering people's sense they're being manipulated, preached at, or talked down to?

    0 0
  4. We can lead you to water, Jason, but we can't force you to drink.

    Sincerely: do youself a favor by finding the answers yourself. You'll find most (if not all) of your questions addressed in the list of citations.  Whatever your attitude, belief or intentions, you'll be the better for investing some effort.

    Many of the citations above will show up with a link to given article in our glossary/cite system if you hover your cursor over titles. What I personally can do to help is to render the entire citation list into a set of clickable links. Would you like that? 

    0 0
  5. If you don't want to discuss the article, Doug, obviously there's no obligation to.  I followed the first two citations you recommended, found they didn't address any of the interesting questions, and one has limited time for data mining expeditions.  I also tried out the app.

    0 0
  6. Whoa there, Jason. We're still stuck at your first question. You've started a discussion— don't scurry away now.

    You asked "does it work?"  You were shown where that question is answered. You say you've read those cites, and to have found your question unaddressed.

    So in a nutshell, you're saying that Cook is making unsupported claims. 

    Specifically,  how are Cook's assertions "Inoculation has been found to be effective in neutralizing misinformation casting doubt on the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming [2, 6]. Inoculation messages are also long lasting [8]"  unfounded?

    0 0
  7. That's a good distance from what I said, so I don't have an answer for you.

    0 0
  8. JasonChen,

    Perhaps a clarification of the issue being discussed would help. Discourse is only possible when there is a common understanding of what is being discussed.

    The issue is the need to help people be less tempted to believe misunderstandings regarding climate science.

    There is undeniably a problem of successful efforts to selectively/misleadingly tempt people to want a product or service that they do not 'need'. There is even the hope that people will be so powerfully tempted that they will consider an 'unnecessary want' to be an 'essential need' which will keep them from investigating or recognising harm done. Those marketing efforts include deliberately failing to investigate and inform about, or misinforming about, harmful risks or results of the 'hoped to be popularly needed' product or service.

    'Does it work' is therefore regarding how effective the 'game' is at helping a person be less likely to be misled into misunderstanding climate science matters. The objective is to reduce the popular support for unnecessarily harmful human activity.

    So it is possible that your perception of the issue is 'a good distance', remote, from the common sense of what the issue is. The popularity of the 'game' is not the issue. Neither is the possibility that someone who is fond of misunderstanding climate science matters would feel 'manipulated' by the game.

    If you believe there is a better tool to help limit the popularity of harmful misunderstanding offer it up. It could be helpful beyond the challenge of the popularity of harmful misunderstandings regarding climate science. But it is common sense that it would be wise to use any such 'better' tool in addition to, not instead of, other helpful tools.

    0 0
  9. I have an ex wife who a year or so later, was 'fond' of me. I have an adversion to the word now!

    How do we reconcile these 2 premises:

    1. Characterizing another who does not conclude at this juncture, as; someone who is fond of misunderstanding climate science matters.
    2. Oxford Dictionary; The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained (the definition of Science bearing no mention of conclusion, and also applies the inference that a conclusion would be an impediment to the process of science).
    I dont think you mean to have a conflict with others still observing and testing theories.

    Milgram's Six Degrees of Separation famously said that a butterfly can flap its wings in Peking, and in Central Park, you get rain instead of sunshine. As opposed to being settled, you cannot operate a scientific understanding without first not knowing. If you are steering to a conclusion, thats not science nor even close.

    To add a bit more meat to the above poetic insertion, I'd like to add 2 observations. On November 22nd 2022 the world hit 8 billion, having increased exactly at the pace and curve of the famous hockey stick graph from 1 billion in the same time span. For a discussion about the planets ability to handle such a change, the clouds and atmosphere contain all the energy and ability to moderate that. However it is impossible to model any of it.

    I say we need to observe, experiment and add theories to our incomplete knowledge of our world and of the solar system. More warmth, more moisture, more clouds, more albedo, etc.

    Theories do not require immediate citations or proofing, however that would be the next thing sought. For the sake of theory ( not a belief nor desiring antagonizing), if we stay to any natural progression of things, the increase of our species having caused changes, if the natural offset were more warmth, moisture, cloud cover and albedo to offset this, are we interferring with natures response just because we would not want a warmer world, more weather, higher coastlines, etc.?

    0 0
  10. Peppers at 9:

    What in the world are you trying to say?

    1 0
  11. Peppers @9 ~ I raise my hand to "second" Philippe's point. Please help!

    I must be a Cranky Uncle of low I.Q. , for I am failing to grasp the points which you are (or may be) making.

    Why are you mentioning "concluding" and "science" as (possibly) excluding each other?  And why undertake a scientific process, if not to reach a conclusion?  Is confirmatory scientific investigation somehow invalid?  (And please do not bring Sartre into your explanation!)

    Chaos and the Butterfly Effect ~ how connected with Milgram's 6 degrees?  If this is a Mixed Metaphor of some sort, then it is too subtle for me . . . so please explain !

    [ Unlike the changes of weather, the changes of climate are not chaotic.   Cloud cover & albedo changes are not chaotic, even though difficult to compute precisely. ]

    0 0
  12. Peppers' production @ 9 has numerous characteristics of what I would indentify as older AI generated language. Rich vocabulary without comprehension or meaning. Correct sentence structure conveying incoherent thoughts. Related concepts mashed together in nonsensical ways.

    0 0
  13. Hi gentlemen,

    I see a quarum gathering!

    I see science as not a conclusive process. History has proven it can only be a progressive form. Einstein overtook Newton, the solar system replaced the center theme, the flat earth, etc. We do not seem to end up too foolish until we stop and say, we know. Then it begins to prove we do not.

    I am really working right off the label on the package. The searching of science never has an arrival.

    For instance. in 1900 the world population was 1.6B. Now it is above 8B. This is the result of science. Global warming is the result of science discovering germs and influencing hygiene, housing and food supply within the industrial revolution. Infant mortality dropped from 50% to 30% by 1950. Today it is below 1% USA after antibiotics were discovered. An historic era for mankind! But do we celebrate this alleviant of human suffering and pain, or do we chastize it for bringing on global warming.

    To me this is so important a question I am hesitant to continue without knowing quite a bit more. I would endure a lot of weather and sea rising in exchange for the boon science has brought.

    0 0
  14. FYI... It's spelled "quorum." This is a fascinating error because the mispelling is essentially a demonstration of Pepper's underlying thought processes with his other... points(?). It's a kind of lazy ignorance. No effort to check the spelling or meaning. Just thrown out there in an attempt to stir the pot.

    Like Eclectic, I had to read the mix of chaos theory/6 degrees of separation thing a couple of times to see if there was some intended reference. My only conclusion is, no. He just doesn't know what he's talking about and doesn't want to be bothered to genuinely understand.

    0 0
  15. Well Rob, thats an unexpected snarky response, culminating in your cancellation. Perhaps this is really only to be an echo chamber for you. Maybe a yes or no answer can pass your criteria to be a discussion for you.

    Have humans during their 180k years remained below and slowly approached 1B inhabitants through this entire time span, only to have skyrocketed 8 time this amount over the last 200 years?

    After 4 such questions you will have my point, which is only going to use existing empirical evidence and no guessing or leaps of faith. There is no  reason to struggle, the answer to the above is yes.

    And Rob your answer may also be no if you just do not want to follow to my point. I am more than happy to use my time for this, but that does not mean you are more important somehow, in regards to cancelling me.

    0 0
  16. @13 , thank you, Peppers, you raise some very general points ~ which might be allowably on-topic in this Cranky Uncle thread.  (And please forgive my overly formal usage of a capital P in your moniker ~ since even our impersonal friend ChatGPT gets awarded an initial capital C . )

    Rob H. is being too tactful to hint at the conjunction of Veritas with an excess of vinum.

    Peppers, you are using false logic when you suggest that all newer scientific understandings (e.g. Einstein's relativity) are entirely replacing (and invalidating) the previous consensus position (e.g. Newton's views).   Quite false, to assert that such "progress" does imply that Einstein is also wrong & will in turn be thrust into the dustbin.

    Peppers, I also take issue with you on the infant mortality argument that you use.  There are still parts of the world where infant & maternal mortality/morbidity are appallingly  high.  And even in parts of the USA, too.  The solution to these problems is essentially non-scientific  ~  it is political [includes attitudinal ].  The problem is: too many Cranky Uncles in this world, with their bad attitude/ their illogic/ their uncompassion & uncharitableness.   [ is "uncompassion" a ChatGPT neologism? ]

    #  John Hartz's comment (today, in the News Roundup #23) quotes George Monbiot on climate science denial and the current rising level of antisocial fascist behaviour.   That is a thread, Peppers, where you might well continue your Chatty musings !

    0 0
  17. Peppers... (sigh) Having a substantive discussion requires that you put forth something meaningful to discuss. What I'm trying to point out is, your assemblage of statements (@9 & 13) are functionally worthless because you're not putting forth rational concepts. Worse yet, you're just making up stuff on the fly with an erroneous assumption it's based in science when, in fact, you've completely mucked up.

    Do some research before posting. Take some time to formulate something worthwhile to discuss and everyone here will be eager to engage. 

    0 0
  18. infant mortalityHi gentlemen. Rob, I start my logic from our worlds increase from 1 to 8 billion people. I dont know of anywhere this is made up or in dispute. I then premise that this describes mankinds addtional use of resources, including increased use that has elevated Co2. I will pause there until we are agreeing these premises are in agreement, but I will hint that this is a remarkable change in approaching this topic. If we do not agree that our population has rocketed up from 1 to 8 billion ( 8 billion reached November 22, 2022 ) in 200 years, after never going over 1 billion in the prior 180,000 years of human history, then we cannot really go to the next step of my ideas (thx).


    Eclectic, hi. I understand infant mortality to be the measurement of human suffering over the large picture. That is how it is posed. I know it sounds off base and we should discuss cancer or heart disease, etc. But infant mortality has been the real beast to our existence. 50% in roman times, peaking to 62% I think in south american in 800AD. It has been at 50% in many place on earth into the mid 1800's. Today it is under 1% in the US, and about 4.35% globally with the third world locations providing the offsets of up to 8.5%. I posted a chart earlier on this thread.

    Surprisingly, or not surprisingly, the eradication of infant mortality, the leap of our lifespans and the shear amount of people who now live to be an adult produces a chart that is an exact mirror to the hockey stick chart used to show our rise in Co2.

    I hesitate to go further, but I will hazard it. If you see what I am referring to, much like the rise of people on earth to 8 billion; there is no going back. The world is different. The world is already different and there is no going back and the United Nations estimates we will continue to increase to just about 9.5-10B around the end of this century and then it will taper off on increasing.

    I have not explored expectations of any decline but if it is expected I would imagine it would involve several hundreds of years. And only find a moderating level of some kind and not return to 1B.

    0 0
  19. Eclectic,

    You are more than welcome to call me out on misuse of premises or data. But I think you slipped in to some all or nothing thinking to cancel out my logic. I dont think Einstein updating Newton's laws of gravity, from all objects exterting an attracting force to thier interplay with space and time and warping the fabric of space itself, invalidates Newton's advance on the subject to him point in time. Bur more is always coming in science. One can never say something is settled. Einstein is now (and he knew it) unable to explain the deepest space questions within black holes, where his formulas now fail. My only point is to ask you to question anytime someone says an area of science is settled, and the derogations of any still continuing to ask questions, to be deniers.  Thx D

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] If you think that nothing in science is ever deserving of the title "settled", do you spend a lot of time questioning the existence of gravity when someone warns you "be careful up there, you might fall"?

  20. Peppers... All that and it's still not very clear to me what exactly you're trying to assert and it's confounded, once again, by a myriad of technical errors in what you're stating.

    0 0
  21. a) Has modern medicine reduced infant mortality rates in the past 150 years? Of course.

    b) Is that a clear proxy for "human suffering." No. You can have low infant mortality and great human suffering.

    c) Is CO2 a necessary byproduct of human advancements? No. Access to energy likely is and thusfar that access to energy has been supplied by fossil fuel sources. But today renewable energy is cheaper and cleaner and will replace those FF sources over the coming decades.

    d) Will the human population return to 1B? It likely could and probably should, as that is probably what this planet can reasonably sustain over the future millennia.

    There are estimations I've seen suggesting the natural decline in the human population into the 22nd century could be rapid as more of world's people attain first world status. We already see this effect occurring in many first world nations. It's most obvious in Japan due to it's strict immigration laws. The US would have a falling population if not for immigration. China's population is now starting to fall as well. 

    0 0
  22. Hi Rob, OK thanks for trying to understand. The world has completely changed and Co2 is just a one part of these changes. But this is proving hard to relate, especially in this settled and denier climate.

    But Co2 is up, and increasing. Still, there are a lot of questions that have answers that are being suppressed.

    Hey, allow me a tickler for you. This is not any main point of mine at all, but I would love to hear a rebuttal.

    I understand the premise that human respiration on earth is an equalized basis; that an equal amount of Co2 is expired based on the photosynthesis that happened to create the Co2, as a cycle. What about if one quotient were increased by a factor of 5 times, such as human population inceasing from 1.6B in 1900 to 8B today? Foliage has increased according to Nasa, by not 5 times worth. With 5 times the 'engines' of people respirating Co2 being in play, but without the photosynthesis being up to speed at the same rate, wouldnt the atmosphere be 'banking' Co2 until the other parts of this cycle, used to explain the human equalizing factor, be a possible explaination to increased Co2 in our world? I find some questions intriguing. We must ask more questions.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Accusations of dishonesty on the part of scientists snipped.

    This is getting increasingly off topic, and increasingly tiresome.

    Philippe (below) has pointed you to a proper thread for the breathing/CO2 discussion. Here it is again:

    Before you go and pollute that thread, ask yourself:

    • How much carbon is stored in 1B people?
    • How much carbon is stored in 8B people?
    • If people breathing out have been adding net carbon to the atmosphere, how does that jive with your estimates of the change in storage between 1) and 2)?

    ...and when you sit down to have your next meal (or ten), look at what you are eating, and ask yourself where the carbon in that meal came from, and how long it was in that form between the time it came out of the atmosphere and went into you.

    You need to spend some time looking at the cycle of [anything], and thinking over the difference between quantities in storage and quantities moving between different forms of storage. You seem to be extremely confused between high storage and high rate of transfer. You should also look at this post on residence time,  and this post on residence time.


  23. CO2 is up and still increasing primarily because we continue to rely on fossil fuel sources of energy.

    Human respiration is part of the active carbon cycle regardless of the numbers of humans on the planet.

    The increase in atomospheric concentration of CO2 is a function of humanity reintroducing sequestered carbon back into the active carbon cycle through buring of FF's.

    Human respiration is not an "equalizing factor" because human respiration does nothing to sequester carbon.

    0 0
  24. Peppers, the problem is when you say something like, "I find some questions intriguing. We must ask more questions." 

    Asking questions is perfectly reasonable. It's great to ask questions. But you also must put that in context of your level of understanding of the subject. The way you're stating this implies that you're asking something that isn't fully understood by researchers.

    You seem to be posing questions for which there are simple answers you're currently unaware of. But you're not taking the time to research if there is a simple answer and rather prefer the idea that you're somehow presenting some new concept researchers haven't considered.

    Again, I will state here, in order to ask pertinent questions worthy of substantive discussion you must first spend some considerable time researching the topic before hand.

    0 0
  25. Peppers' comment @ 22 above should be on this thread:



    This old dead horse has been flogged ad nauseam already and has no value. It casts serious doubt on the sincerity of anyone willing to stoop so low as to use it. It is even worse when it is accompanied by thinly veiled accusations of "suppressing" dissenting voices, accusations for which there is not a shred of credible evidence, especially in the post making the accusation. Anybody who can think quantitatively will quickly see the vacuity of the "human breathing causes CO2 rise" argument. The "just asking questions" trolling method has been seen around here innumerable times, it is no more amusing now than it was years ago. 

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Note that although the displayed text for the "breathing" page is garbled, the actual link behind the text points to the correct page.

  26. I actually take Peppers at his word thinking he actually believes these are pertinent questions to ask. I think he's likely operating at a very low level of understanding on climate science issues, thus everything seems pertinent. The problem is he's not understanding that he's asking very low level questions for which there are simple answers. 

    It's rather like when climate deniers say the warming is caused by the sun on the ridiculous assumption that climate scientists have never bothered to check.

    All very "Cranky Uncle" stuff.

    I guess it's far easier to believe there's a conspiracy rather than reading the published research to learn there's not.

    0 0
  27. Philippe, your ad hominem aside, I went to your thread shown and it is far from decided. The cycle discussed is not calibrated for a 5 times increase of people breathing. There is a rush to return to fossil fuel as the cause on that thread.

    I wouldnt be surprised if fossil fuel were paramount. More people also mean more fossil fuel use. But submission participants who were really interested wanted to know and caculate how much Co2 is emited per person, etc. No one answers that there.

    Ill see what I can dig up. Whether it is from breathing or from more fossil fuel use and if it is because we now have more people, this starts a lot of prioritizing junctures over again. I think. Thx D

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Take this to the correct thread. Any further off-topic posts will be deleted entirely.

  28. Peppers, here is a link to the appropriate thread for the breathing CO2 topic. But before you respond, please take the time to read the article and consider the science presented.

    0 0
  29. That comment is very definitely going to get deleted by the mods, Peppers, because you couldn't follow a very simple instruction to post it in the appropriate thread.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] The comment you are referring to, plus another that followed, have indeed been deleted as off-topic.

    Continued behaviour such as this by Peppers will likely result in his posting privileges being rescinded.

    On second thought, no point in waiting. Peppers will no longer be participating here.

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us