Slashdot Mirror
Engaging With Climate Skeptics
In the wake of the CRU "climategate" leak, reader Geoffrey.landis sends along a New York Times blog profile of Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech. "Curry — unlike many climate scientists — does not simply dismiss the arguments of 'climate skeptics,' but attempts to engage them in dialogue. She can, as well, be rather pointed in criticizing her colleagues, as in a post on the skeptic site climateaudit where she argues for greater transparency for climate data and calculations (mirrored here). In this post she makes a point that tribalism in science is the main culprit here —- that when scientists 'circle the wagons' to defend against what they perceive to be unfair (and unscientific) attacks, the result can be damaging to the actual science being defended. Is it still possible to conduct a dialogue, or is there no possible common ground?"
The basement of the heritage foundation?
We have the best government that money can buy.
not only that, but governments are pretty much the greatest cause of pollution in society.
Better to be educated via Fox News or CNN than that climate scare-master algore.
If there were no God, there would be no atheists. -- G.K. Chesterton
What a load of slanderous bollocks. I hope for your sake the people involved aren't of a litigious bent.
Those that do not believe that global warming is real have very real and very sick motives for their denial. No amount of evidence or proof will ever change their minds. They simply are not concerned and all that they want is to feel safe and to have their positions in this world unchanged. In addition it is part and parcel with some other idiotic conservative doctrines. Some of these doctrines are somewhat occult in that they have never been seriously defined. For example the anti abortion loonies have a deep feeling that the general morality may change if abortion remains available. Their feeling is that any change in community morality somehow endangers them. The usual nonsense that it is a moral imperative for them to stop abortions is nonsense. There is no moral duty to stop other people from using an alternative such as abortion. Trying to equate it with stopping slavery or other such tripe are symptoms of primitive minds running wild with poorly formed abilities to reason.
So obvious yet you apparently can't actually see it - the denialist industry has considerably more resources behind it than the academics and research scientists. A few piffly grant monies versus the vested interests of the current energy industry? Those avaricious scientists are clearly prepared to invent any kind of lie or distraction to maintain their current position of wealth and power eh?
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
May I ask how old you are? How long ago or how bad is your school education?
"it is all already completely decided everything I is fact and no reasonable scientist can argue with me" is bullcrap. This is decided since 40 or 50 years. The only new thing about climate change are the climate change deniers.
If you lack the basic knowledge in physics you should probably stand back from posting on /. ???
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
... I don't doubt that climate change can be human-affected but for fucks sake it's been decades now.
I don't doubt that _evolution_ but for fucks sake it's been decades now.
Wow, that argument works on a number of things.
My UID is prime. Hah!
Sorry, but I have a hard time understanding how, when we can't even predict tomorrow's weather with any sense of accuracy ("It'll be five degrees and sunny" -- and then it's 2 and snowing), we know what it's going to be like over the next 20, 50, or 100 years.
Then either stay out of the debate or educate yourself perhaps? You bluntly admit you have no clue but make a one page rant? That is ridiculous!!!
The error bars just simply have to be overshadowing the predicted temperatures. No. Climate forecasts are 100 times simpler than weather forecasts.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I've never studied climatology or even oceanography but if you're going to make such statements, I hope you have the credentials to back it up and tell me without any doubt what a 'normal cycle' constitutes.
In other words, you'll accept the word of anyone who agrees with you without question and you don't even claim to have any particular knowledge of your own, but anyone who disagrees with you better have dedicated 20 years of his life to be worth considering. You really are an arrogant fucking idiot.
Gold bid raid leader DC'd on us we had a 70450g pot and its gone, its unlikely he will return tonight (name: presadin). He came on 40 minutes after I made this ticket and is not answering our whispers, this is officially a scam, the gold needs to be properly distributed as an even share among the members of raid ID 10981080 who were present at 9:30 PM server time. Thank you.
you mean the emdails which were supposedly extracted from stolen data which cannot be confirmed? At best it's cherry picking, more likely it's merely fabricated.
Where were these hackers before cap and trade hit congress? How much were they paid under the table by the most egregious polluters in the US?
If you want to offer different and valid interpretations of data, or point out the possibility of selection bias, it's one thing, but you can't cite "conveniently unconfirmed" exceperts from data breached at a suspiciously convenient time to back your position and expect not to be called on it.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
A global conspiracy amongst scientists.... to what end?
Money? Nah, couldn't be!
Again, the only arguments to be presented are ad hominem. If the publication is so poor, the presenter so feeble-minded, and the argument so flawed, then the superior logic and outstanding dataset of the opposition should easily be able to disprove his claims.
Researchers and, well, anyone, will get money from almost any source they can. Even though I do not track the money pouring into AGW research, I am quite certain a substantial portion of it is not coming from sources without motive. That is how research money is found.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
It's clear from the emails that the science community now views any skeptic, no matter how reputable, as 100% hostile
That's where the problem is, and the emails only confirm what was suspected all along. Nobody cares any more what CRU people think - they are done for. Not for their opinions - for what they did. Emails only explain why they concealed data and unethically suppressed critics.
...make a few assumptions...
Yes of course that's real science, to make assumptions (beliefs). Faith is for religion not for science. Scientists are supposed to work with what they KNOW or can observe. This problem that you purport to solve is not that simple. You have to know the water content of the ice, it's average depth and its average area. Accurately knowing the water content alone is a biggie. Has it ever been determined in a number of places all over Greenland? Once you have the volume of water this ice is equivalent to, you have to add it to the volume of the oceans, not the area. Then you have to calculate how much that volume of water will raise the sea level.
Is there any evidence that the ocean levels were 20 feet higher when Greenland was still a green land? That would have been during the time of the Vikings who also explored the Northwest passage at the time because there was no ice there either.
Another question I have in this whole global warming scenario, is why everybody only ever talks about the detrimental effects of global warming. In almost everything in this life, there are advantages and disadvantages to things. Nobody, especially in the global warming, the world is ending crowd, does anybody ever speak of what benefits there might be in global warming. There is evidence that the earth was once a warm, humid, global paradise. What would be so bad if that happened again?
All theory is gray
Nice reasoning; but you realize you're arguing with a dumb fuck?
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Yes, clearly it's all bullshit. We all know the videos of the glaciers melting is all done on a soundstage in Hollywood somewhere (probably funded by Al Gore and his commie-loving liberal wacko buddies).
And all the temperature sensors in the oceans indicating warming were all put near underwater volcanic vents.
And the increased strength and duration of hurricanes over the last 30 years is actually a plot by Al Queda.
The problem with dipshits like you is that you try to find one little kink in the armor and make that the center point of your whole argument while simultaneously ignoring all the other evidence that exists, even the evidence that's blatantly fucking obvious with your own eyes. The reason? Political affiliation. You're a conservative and to agree with something promoted by a democrat makes you cringe. Your ideologies blind you to reality. I wish this were an isolated occurrence but unfortunately it is oh so common that it's depressing. Reason has no place on this earth.
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?