If this isn’t the dumbest science ever, it’s close. The peer-reviewed paper is “The effect of temperature on language complexity: Evidence from seven million parliamentary speeches” by Risto Conte Keivabu and Tobias Widmann in Cell. Here, as the wrote them, are the “highlights” of the paper:
Having not studied The Science, I make no claims to correctness, but have the authors considered either of these two hypotheses: 1) that talking about “climate change” makes you dumber, or 2) that if you are talking about “climate change” your speech will be simpler (to appeal to a dumber audience, perhaps?). Perhaps they should investigate.
Suggested edit: "talking about “climate change” your speech will be simpler", should probably read, "talking about “climate change” your speech MUST be simpler"
Can only hope one day people will be writing about how in the early 21st century to be on Substack and subscribe to publications like Science Is Not The Answer was a revolution in education. Giving virtually anyone access to true knowledge at little to no cost.
Have to admit that not so long ago when I would see mention of a study in some prestigious sounding journal like "Cell" or "The Lancet", I reflexively would assume that meant research of real substance or at least no nonsense.
The PCCs (Pseudoscience Citation Circles) must all wither and die, along with the late-stage HEIC (Higher Education Industrial Complex) in its entirety. Gonna take us awhile to rebuild our formerly high-trust society, though.
Accepting that the world has warmed in the recent past (which I am not completely willing to do), if, in fact, warmer temps lead to lower language complexity in parliamentary speeches, I would argue that air conditioning in world parliaments is much more available then it was 50 years ago, so the actual temperatures the politicians are working in are most likely getting cooler regardless of outside temps. All of your critiques also apply, but their basic data used to construct this ridiculous conclusion is also highly suspect.
In the range of climate variability impacts where or where does one place geological impacts?
Geophys Res Lett. 2022 Jul 16; 49(13): e2022GL099381.
Published online 2022 Jul 1. doi: 10.1029/2022GL099381
PMCID: PMC9285945
PMID: 35865735
The Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha'apai Hydration of the Stratosphere
L. Millán, 1 M. L. Santee, 1 A. Lambert, 1 N. J. Livesey, 1 F. Werner, 1 M. J. Schwartz, 1 H. C. Pumphrey, 2 G. L. Manney, 3 , 4 Y. Wang, 1 , 5 H. Su, 1 L. Wu, 1 W. G. Read, 1 and L. Froidevaux 1
Abstract
Following the 15 January 2022 Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha'apai eruption, several trace gases measured by the Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) displayed anomalous stratospheric values. Trajectories and radiance simulations confirm that the H2O, SO2, and HCl enhancements were injected by the eruption. In comparison with those from previous eruptions, the SO2 and HCl mass injections were unexceptional, although they reached higher altitudes. In contrast, the H2O injection was unprecedented in both magnitude (far exceeding any previous values in the 17‐year MLS record) and altitude (penetrating into the mesosphere). We estimate the mass of H2O injected into the stratosphere to be 146 ± 5 Tg, or ∼10% of the stratospheric burden. It may take several years for the H2O plume to dissipate. This eruption could impact climate not through surface cooling due to sulfate aerosols, but rather through surface warming due to the radiative forcing from the excess stratospheric H2O.
If one wants to argue that climate change could reduce the productivity of politicians, I would first ask "how would you tell?"
A convenient corollary to the finding of this paper might be that it explains why nations in the equatorial regions of the planet tend to be so much less advanced than those in the temperate regions. It's the heat, of course! Although less "productivity" by the equatorial politicians might actually equal MORE progress. Hmm...
Considering that the political class probably only experiences the oppressive heat of climate change in the brief periods while moving between air-conditioned car and air-conditioned office, home, and government chamber, the political class appears to be an exceedingly delicate organism.
I can't help but wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye? Even though this seems to be about "global warming" there might be an otherwise taboo subject lurking underneath (like IQ research). It's long been wondered why science and technology has made far more advances in the global north than the global south. I've run across research (from decades ago) broadly suggesting that cognitive performance is optimal at certain temperature ranges more commonly found in Europe and North America, less so in Africa, the Middle East, and so on. For example study by Gaoua (2010) demonstrated that exposure to heat stress reduced performance in tasks involving attention, memory, and executive function. Does it not make some sense to say that "that in hot conditions, individuals may experience difficulty in performing tasks that require high levels of cognitive control and sustained mental effort." as some research has suggested? The causal mechanism is easy to understand. For example "Heat stress can lead to fatigue, reduced alertness, and slower reaction times. This is due to the body's increased effort to regulate its temperature, which can divert resources from cognitive processes.". Needless to say, there is a rick of being called "a racist" if I go too far with this speculation but it's worth looking into.
Psychopathic sociopaths, in which Corporation CEO'S, Politicians, and murderes are ofttimes representative, are by their nature, stressed. Always trying not to get caught in their own lies.
Cold kills more "geezers" than a little warmth, that's for sure. But since the "geezers" in power love power more than human life and are unaffected by the policies they implement, we are on a track for many "geezers" to perish from the lack of fossil fuels.
If history runs in cycles, as the Chinese and Martin Armstrong have it, and SCIENTIA proceeded from the hub of prescribed beliefs aka the Church, then she meaning science is not getting any dumber only showing that she is about to come home to roost. Heaven help us.
Having not studied The Science, I make no claims to correctness, but have the authors considered either of these two hypotheses: 1) that talking about “climate change” makes you dumber, or 2) that if you are talking about “climate change” your speech will be simpler (to appeal to a dumber audience, perhaps?). Perhaps they should investigate.
Suggested edit: "talking about “climate change” your speech will be simpler", should probably read, "talking about “climate change” your speech MUST be simpler"
Can only hope one day people will be writing about how in the early 21st century to be on Substack and subscribe to publications like Science Is Not The Answer was a revolution in education. Giving virtually anyone access to true knowledge at little to no cost.
Have to admit that not so long ago when I would see mention of a study in some prestigious sounding journal like "Cell" or "The Lancet", I reflexively would assume that meant research of real substance or at least no nonsense.
The PCCs (Pseudoscience Citation Circles) must all wither and die, along with the late-stage HEIC (Higher Education Industrial Complex) in its entirety. Gonna take us awhile to rebuild our formerly high-trust society, though.
Accepting that the world has warmed in the recent past (which I am not completely willing to do), if, in fact, warmer temps lead to lower language complexity in parliamentary speeches, I would argue that air conditioning in world parliaments is much more available then it was 50 years ago, so the actual temperatures the politicians are working in are most likely getting cooler regardless of outside temps. All of your critiques also apply, but their basic data used to construct this ridiculous conclusion is also highly suspect.
Thank you. I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone mention this before except for me.
In the range of climate variability impacts where or where does one place geological impacts?
Geophys Res Lett. 2022 Jul 16; 49(13): e2022GL099381.
Published online 2022 Jul 1. doi: 10.1029/2022GL099381
PMCID: PMC9285945
PMID: 35865735
The Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha'apai Hydration of the Stratosphere
L. Millán, 1 M. L. Santee, 1 A. Lambert, 1 N. J. Livesey, 1 F. Werner, 1 M. J. Schwartz, 1 H. C. Pumphrey, 2 G. L. Manney, 3 , 4 Y. Wang, 1 , 5 H. Su, 1 L. Wu, 1 W. G. Read, 1 and L. Froidevaux 1
Abstract
Following the 15 January 2022 Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha'apai eruption, several trace gases measured by the Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) displayed anomalous stratospheric values. Trajectories and radiance simulations confirm that the H2O, SO2, and HCl enhancements were injected by the eruption. In comparison with those from previous eruptions, the SO2 and HCl mass injections were unexceptional, although they reached higher altitudes. In contrast, the H2O injection was unprecedented in both magnitude (far exceeding any previous values in the 17‐year MLS record) and altitude (penetrating into the mesosphere). We estimate the mass of H2O injected into the stratosphere to be 146 ± 5 Tg, or ∼10% of the stratospheric burden. It may take several years for the H2O plume to dissipate. This eruption could impact climate not through surface cooling due to sulfate aerosols, but rather through surface warming due to the radiative forcing from the excess stratospheric H2O.
Proponents of anthropogenic climate change strangely omit the not-insubstantial contribution of volcanoes.
*invariably omit. It’s not strange, even rhetorically.
“Stupidity is still a live possibility for every intelligent person.”
The living exemplar is me, I must confess. My epitaph will read “What was I thinking?!”
I think “climate change” has a demonstrable effect on the foolishness of published “Science”.
If one wants to argue that climate change could reduce the productivity of politicians, I would first ask "how would you tell?"
A convenient corollary to the finding of this paper might be that it explains why nations in the equatorial regions of the planet tend to be so much less advanced than those in the temperate regions. It's the heat, of course! Although less "productivity" by the equatorial politicians might actually equal MORE progress. Hmm...
Considering that the political class probably only experiences the oppressive heat of climate change in the brief periods while moving between air-conditioned car and air-conditioned office, home, and government chamber, the political class appears to be an exceedingly delicate organism.
If heat is bad for the brain, then we hoomans in warmer climes are stoopider, right?
That's racist!!!
(Did I do that right?)
Did they get a grant for this? Unbelievable.
Alternatively titled, "How turning on the AC raises your IQ by 40 points"
I would add that this 'dumbest science ever' is obscene on its face - a wanton exercise in mental masturbation!
What is annoying about this "research" is that someone thought of this to study in the first place.
This is throwing stuff against the wall yet nothing ever sticks.
As long as it involves climate change, you can probably get money to write a paper.
I can't help but wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye? Even though this seems to be about "global warming" there might be an otherwise taboo subject lurking underneath (like IQ research). It's long been wondered why science and technology has made far more advances in the global north than the global south. I've run across research (from decades ago) broadly suggesting that cognitive performance is optimal at certain temperature ranges more commonly found in Europe and North America, less so in Africa, the Middle East, and so on. For example study by Gaoua (2010) demonstrated that exposure to heat stress reduced performance in tasks involving attention, memory, and executive function. Does it not make some sense to say that "that in hot conditions, individuals may experience difficulty in performing tasks that require high levels of cognitive control and sustained mental effort." as some research has suggested? The causal mechanism is easy to understand. For example "Heat stress can lead to fatigue, reduced alertness, and slower reaction times. This is due to the body's increased effort to regulate its temperature, which can divert resources from cognitive processes.". Needless to say, there is a rick of being called "a racist" if I go too far with this speculation but it's worth looking into.
Heat stress is one thing. Politicians are not laboring under the hot sun.
You had it at - "Politicians are not laboring"
It's all that hot air.
Psychopathic sociopaths, in which Corporation CEO'S, Politicians, and murderes are ofttimes representative, are by their nature, stressed. Always trying not to get caught in their own lies.
One has to ponder then why the Romans as Latins 'of the south' did so well at giving us the unparalleled foundations of today's civilization.
Cold kills more "geezers" than a little warmth, that's for sure. But since the "geezers" in power love power more than human life and are unaffected by the policies they implement, we are on a track for many "geezers" to perish from the lack of fossil fuels.
If "scientist" had to return the money when their published paper is falsified, maybe they would be more careful about their errors.
If history runs in cycles, as the Chinese and Martin Armstrong have it, and SCIENTIA proceeded from the hub of prescribed beliefs aka the Church, then she meaning science is not getting any dumber only showing that she is about to come home to roost. Heaven help us.