Slashdot Mirror
Another Climate-Change Retraction
jamie writes "It seems every time someone twists global-warming science into 'good news,' a retraction is soon to follow, and so it must be for Slashdot. Yesterday, the conservative Wall Street Journal published yet another apologetic claiming 'the overall effect of climate change will be positive,' by someone who (of course) is not a climate scientist. Today, Climate Progress debunks the piece, noting 'Ridley and the WSJ cite the University of Illinois paper to supposedly prove that warming this century will be under 2C — when the author has already explained to them that his research shows the exact opposite!' We went through this same process last year, with the same author and the same paper, so it's pretty embarrassing that he 'makes a nearly identical blunder' all over again."
Anything to keep you from looking at the root cause of the problem. Pollution, waste, dumping, strip farming/mining, and so on and so on are never discussed. Problems that we see like the great pacific garbage dump are ignored, as are ocean dead zones and polluted water.
I don't believe 99% of what is paid to be published, because, well hell look who is paying for the media spin? The same people pushing more and more pollution in most cases.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Just because x can lead to benefit y does not imply x is over all beneficial. Yes, there are a few benefits to climate change. That does not take away from the fact there are a whole legion of those-things-that-are-the-opposite-of-benefits. Seems like this needs to be explained anybody does research indicating the former - not that I'm blaming or finding the said scientists at fault for it. Same goes for other disciplines too.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
Consider the WSJ position on an issue and do the opposite. You will then more likely be closer to the truth and if money is involved it will be more profitable. It has for me.
"Whoops! I meant to make the same argument with a *different* paper!"
Freeman Dyson
who lists climate scientist on his CV, and,
who is the greatest polymath of the age, and,
who is pretty much the smartest person never to win a Nobel, says,
"The polar bears will be fine".
Bloodninja? Is that you?
Perhaps the author is a Birther? :)
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
so his paper said it would be "Over -2C"? That would be the exact opposite "Under 2C".
Maybe "exact opposite" was a poor turn of a phrase? (what does jamie mean, exactly?)
Relevant: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174
Black lie is what I call it. These scum knew what they were doing. They've been told, repeatedly, that they are wrong and why they are wrong, and they just dismiss and ignore everything and say those lies again anyway. They were printing propaganda. Throwing raw meat to the conservatives. That's all the WSJ's opinion section has been since Murdoch bought it.
It's like the black knight skit in Quest for the Holy Grail. "It's only a flesh wound" and "The earth has had worse." Won't quit fighting even after his legs have been cut out from under him.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
What I'd love to see is reporting on climate change that presented facts without the hyperbole. I'm reasonably certain that I'm far from the only person that's fed up with having hyperbole rammed down my throat and would really rather just have the actual "science" reported.
it's pretty embarrassing that he 'makes a nearly identical blunder' all over again.
What's embarrassing is that you continue your association with an author who has shown himself to be of poor credibility.
Forbes WSJ FoxNews and of course all of wright wing talk/hate radio, and others , consistently misrepresent the facts of climate science, what climate scientists are saying and how climate modeling is done.
Either they're, for reasons unknown, persistent and unlucky victims of poor reporting, poor analysis and mistaken inference or there is a persistent and deliberate determination on their parts to knowingly and with malice of forethought lie about climate science to the American , British Australian and European public.
If it turns out it's the latter, we can ask some interesting questions., Since persuading people that climate change is not as the scientists represent it -a ticking time bomb we are running out of time to defuse and one whose consequences include the mass death of humans, is lying about climate science not the equivalent to shouting (no) fire in a crowded (and burning) theater?
If it is, then are they not already criminals and are they not already responsible for those deaths? I think this is called "manslaughter" and when the number of people you caused to die numbers into the millions, I think that's elevated to "crimes against humanity".
Of course the US will never go there, but what about other nations? Hasn't the US demonstrated that people who threaten Americans are subject to executive action irrespective of where they are or whether the host nation is inclined to turn them over?
Could China or Japan or Germany or Russia or any other country just legally and unilaterally decide that say, David and Charles Koch represent too much of a threat to human civilization to permit them to go on living? Would they be within their legal right to quietly see to it that the perps are silently and quietly and discretely brought to final justice?
And what about the money these organization make from their climate denialism? Isn't that money, even if it's been dispersed to their heirs and partners actually. ill-gotten gains and subject to something like international civil forfeiture? The money to cover the catastrophically high cost of attempting to turn back climate change at the last possible moment has to be extracted from someone.
Obviously this is all beyond the pale for the current times, but time change and when they change, attitudes change, often suddenly and dramatically. What was just an amusing thought experiment one day becomes harsh reality another.
Laws exist to make society livable. They are defined according and in reaction to the environment. If that environment changes dramatically, then we can expect that near future generations of people will look back see the times we are living in now quite differently than we do, just the way we look back on slavery as an abomination or the post WWII generation of Germans were completely appalled at what their parents had done.
Well it all depends on what you consider positive and negative. Warming overall, I imagine,would probably increase life density, and the complexity of a global warning weather system is probably likely to inspire species to improve over time, after the short term mass death.
It will be horrible for human civilization, but that is good for the environment as well.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
The really stupid thing is building your entire society around the idea that the climate will never change. Whether we cause it or not, or climate will change in spans of time that are relevant to human interests. Think of the current unwillingness to change as the first proper field exercise in dealing with it.
Have you got a solution that doesn't involve regulation?
Depends on what you call regulation. A carbon tax-and-refund scheme would let the market find a solution by attaching an appropriate price to an externality. That would be significantly less government interference than a cap & trade or straight up permit-based regulation scheme.
However, if "tax and let the market figure it out" falls into the camp of (evil) regulation, then no. It turns out that the main reason laws exist is to keep people from doing stuff that benefits themselves at the expense of others who can't in turn do anything to stop it without resorting to violence or other worse behavior.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The bottom line is that lying works when you are dealing with low-information people.
Table-ized A.I.
Where are all the normal Slashdot AGW deniers? Usually they'd be all over an article like this.
Wait for it.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
It is, in fact, many of the same people who helped obscure the underlying science in both cases. Nicely documented by historians Naomi Oreskes and Naomi Oresekes in Merchants of Doubt.
Twice means is purposeful.
The sooner to be released AR5 is essentially saying that because ecs, equilibrium climate sensitivity value was over estimated, all the models are wrong, garbage in/garbage out.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Why is it surprising that the Wall Street Journal deliberately prints distorted interpretations of various climate papers or complete fabrications otherwise if there's nothing on hand? Why is it at all surprising that the WSJ prints denialist propaganda?
More importantly: why were the Slashdot editors who posted the original article so naive and gullible?
Anybody with a modicum of media experience already knew this. After all, this propaganda war has been going on for more than a decade now. Slashdot editors went belly up completely on this one. It's an embarrassment to an otherwise very alert and cogent site. I was annoyed as hell when I saw /. post the orginal, now retracted article.
How could you have been so stupid? Especially on a science and technology oriented site? Are your editors crippled by political bias? If not, what is it?
It's impossible to accurately predict climate change just like it's impossible to predict, with any degree of accuracy, specifics about next year's weather. We know, in generalities, how the weather will be next year, but we have no certainty as to specifics of details for any given day or week. We also know, with even less certainty, some generalities about how the climate will shift over the next 100 years. What we do know, with absolute certainty, is that scientists will exploit any opportunity to use the media to drum up funding opportunities.
OK, WSJ may be conservative, but if we are ranking by distance from center, WSJ is maybe one sigma to the right, while Thinkprogress is about 3 to the left.
Your right, we SHOULD be listening to the people pushing for more taxes for the government instead, because they OBVIOUSLY have your best interest in mind.
Have you got a solution that doesn't involve regulation?
What is being said here seems to be "I don't like the solutions that I think will be imposed, so therefore I will vehemently argue that the problem doesn't exist, or if it exists that it's not as bad as projected."
The logical fallacy of that should be obviously: whether a particular solution is right or wrong has no logical bearing on whether the science-- that human-generated carbon dioxide contributes to temperature according to well-known models-- is correct.
If you don't like the solution, perhaps you should work on figure out a proposal for a solution that is acceptable, rather than denying the science is right.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Just another case of right wing media and politicians consistently denying climate change.
I guess US big oil must be the force (read: money) behind them.
Fucking called it:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4216793&cid=44862089
Big complex theories don't turn on a dime.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You cannot argue with them. "Climate Change (formerly 'global warming'; had to be changed since there has not been any significant warming in over a decade), has become a religion of its own. Daring to disagree with the new religion is blasphemous and must be strictly dealt with, because you are considered a threat. It is a little ironic that these people mock everyone who has their beliefs in their own traditional religions, but then act just as intolerant and hateful when anyone mocks their baloney climate religion.
From the summary:
[...] published yet another apologetic claiming [...]
Emphasis mine.
apologetic
noun
a reasoned argument or writing in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine: free market apologetics.
What the WSJ wrote was an apology (or retraction or clarification). In this context, an apologetic would be understood as a defense of their previous statements, which is the exact opposite of the intended meaning.
Words are important.
Disclaimer: I make no claims to being above reproach when it comes to grammar, spelling, punctuation, or my choice of words. The only claim I make is to being annoyed at having to re-read that sentence in the summary because it doesn't make sense.
I'm not completely decided that there isn't some other fundamental cause for climate change (I mean, the climate has changed in the past and the models are still frequently incorrect) BUT...
Going to those to sites for information is equivalent to using the daily mail in the UK or the national enquirer in the US (hmmm or maybe Cosmo- they make up more stuff than the national enquirer).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The logical fallacy of that should be obviously: whether a particular solution is right or wrong has no logical bearing on whether the science-- that human-generated carbon dioxide contributes to temperature according to well-known models-- is correct.
I don't believe I have seen anyone argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. The arguments are over the "feedbacks" and the "forcing factors" in the models, which predict dire heating from CO2, and yet we are about to bust out of the 95% confidence level from the models. CO2 is much higher than 15 years ago but temperatures remain pretty flat.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html
Also, according to this, the warming contribution of CO2 tails off asypmtotically.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up, and the claims that global warming due to CO2 will be catastrophic don't seem to be proven. For example, the "hot spot" seems to be missing.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot/
I am not a climate scientist, but I am open to explanations of why any or all of the above sources are not correct.
Of course I hope global warming is overrated, because the world is still dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. If the consequences really will be dire, we will find out.
Sorry to inform you but no, I am not a troll. Nor was that flamebait.
If you want to convince me that global warming really is a problem and the models are correct, please explain about the links I posted, not just strike me down with moderation.
If you want to moderate this post down, instead of "Troll" why not use "Overrated," the favorite all purpose moderation that means "I do not like what you say."
Start here. Wean yourself off the incorrect idea that the only supporting evidence is a bunch of computer models.
... makes a nearly identical blunder ...
It's not a blunder. That's the big lie: that it's an honest difference of opinion. The rest is minor detail.
What would it take to convince you? I'm serious. Almost _every fucking scientist on the planet_ is saying it's true, and they have been since the 1960s. What else do you need?
The logical fallacy of that should be obviously: whether a particular solution is right or wrong has no logical bearing on whether the science-- that human-generated carbon dioxide contributes to temperature according to well-known models-- is correct.
I don't believe I have seen anyone argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
You haven't paid attention, then-- among the garbage-dumpsters of junk pouring out from the so-called skeptics, yes, that argument is there, in truckloads.
The arguments are over the "feedbacks" and the "forcing factors" in the models
Uh, why are you putting these words in quotes?
Also, according to this, the warming contribution of CO2 tails off asypmtotically.
The word you want is "logarithmic," not "asympototic." (a logarithm does not have a horizontal asymptote). This has been known since Arrhenius made the first calculation back in 1896, so I'm puzzled that you're suddenly amazed at it. It is why climate sensitivity is conventionally quoted in terms of doubling (that is, log base 2), instead of, say, response per ppm.
....Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up,
OK, I will momentarily suspend my skepticism and consider the hypothesis that you actually are interested in the evidence. I have a question, then: Have you actually read the IPCC working-group 1 report, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change. I don't mean, a summary of it, or a critique by some website with an axe to grind, or somebody's paraphrasing it, or somebody else's explanation of why you shouldn't read it. Have you actually read the report?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml
If you haven't-- well, then I can reject the hypothesis that you are actually interested in the evidence, if you're not willing to look at the evidence.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
No retraction.
The "news" of a retraction is fantasy.
!
It's a safe bet this wasn't a blunder, but someone hoping no one would notice, and he (or she, whatever,) was trying for the same effect he was going for last year. Some schmuck's underling once said that if you repeat something enough times, it becomes the truth, (by which I think he meant people accept it, if that's what he said; a lie does not magically become truth no matter how many times it's repeated). Maybe anyway, that's what he's going for.
And. "But, but, but Feel Better Inside." is not an argument I care to hear.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
please explain about the links I posted
You posted a link from the Daily Mail for f***s sakes. Are you seriously asking for an explanation about that one?
Then you posted two from the well-known denial site WUWT. Again, do you really need an explanation? Can you support any of these contentions with reference to authoritative sources, ie. real science in bona fide peer-reviewed journals?
No retraction!
WTF buddy.
Yea, "Shit For Brians."
Every village his its idiot and U are IT.
Yea, 60,000 sperm and you are the one who won!
What a LOOZER.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXsCokh-NIQ
This one goes out to U. Head Crusher.
Once is happenstance.
Twice is coincidence.
Now, three times...
Which is why the criminals responsible for this whole charade renamed it 'climate change'.
Wow! I guess they must have had a lot of foresight then to publish this paper in October of 1970:
"Carbon Dioxide and its Role in Climate Change" by George Benton.
The climate is cyclical, human induced global warming isn't happening. What is happening is that we're shitting in our own bed however. Global warming is a scam that is getting harder and harder to cover up from real scientists who don't interpret the data to suit their cabal of "oh shit, we were wrong about this" . The temperature hasn't gone up in 15 years on average, it plateued around 96/97 . What is happening and is obvious is pollution in the water and air, those are things we should be worried about, along with energy independence so we can quit worrying about the middle east.
You can start with Hansen's 1981 paper about CO2 which lists a dozen forcings, some positive, some negative and their relative strengths.
CO2 is NOT a particularly strong forcing; there are quite a few that are MUCH stronger in VERY low concentrations, some positive, some negative.
But CO2 is PERSISTENT over decades or longer whereas most other forcings are diminished in weeks to years.
So you have to quantify what the effects of those others are before saying that CO2 has negligible impact.
And then there's ocean circulation but that's a big topic and not particularly well-understood.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
The caveat is you have to believe in Michael Mann's Hockey Stick. Which is going to start happening when exactly?
The Earth is heating. Has been before peeps started burning things. Now more peeps then ever are burning things and yet no hockey stick. Maybe there is no hockey stick? No hockey stick, no trillions saved. At least you can admit that the hockey stick is about as sketchy as models come. Most are running hotter than reality, some are going to start falling out of the error bars if it doesn't start really warming up.
Gnash your teeth and hope for warming, I guess. Other wise you may have to start rethinking this whole AGW thing.
The WSJ is the new /.
The logical fallacy of that should be obvious[...]
So obvious in fact, the ancients gave it a name: argumentum ad consequentiam.
I am not a climate scientist, but I am open to explanations of why any or all of the above sources are not correct.
Of course I hope global warming is overrated, because the world is still dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. If the consequences really will be dire, we will find out.
You could start with Ray Pierrehumbert's textbook.
That has a slightly idiosyncratic selection of topics, though; so you should follow up with another textbook, perhaps this.
Of course there will still be gaps in your knowledge after that. But there are many more textbooks...and you'll be in a position to identify the gaps by then.
If you're not prepared to put in any work, then Spencer Weart's web site has some easy reading.
You mean, massively improved air and water quality and respiratory health, and decades of lower power and transport costs--not to mention reduced health care costs?
Doesn't matter what China does, or India. Make the switch in the USA, and you get all those, and part way back up to the moral high ground.
Please look at that cartoon: it has a caption "start here", which points at the scientist's research.
... saner ... to wait 1-2 weeks until we have (A) downloaded the actual damn WG1 report from here, and (B) your favourite (see cartoon) "local eyewitless news" interpretation of it?
The research we're talking about, the next IPCC WG1 report, will be published *NEXT WEEK*
So why are we reading the newspapers or watching the TV shows ALREADY? Wouldn't it be a bit
Thank you. Apologies for shouting, fellow Slashdotters.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
This is a truckload of B***S***.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
During the last temperature peak some 5,000 years ago the Uralic language split into dozens of families from Finnish to Sami and Hungarian to Samoyedic. It was good times in the Northern Eurasia region..
As I understand it, the term Global Warming didn't turn up on the main radar until 5 years after that paper came out:
http://transitiontownpayson.net/2013/04/25/who-coined-the-term-global-warming-anyway/
We can argue about who named what first as much as we like, the fact is that somehow the term Global Warming has been replaced with Climate Change in certain parts of the media in the same way that things like Cancer Link keep getting replaced by Health Risk when attached to certain business interests. It's what happens when science and politics meet and the spin doctors and vested interests all kick into damage control mode and ethics get stomped on by profiteers.
Should we be playing Chinese whispers over the name of something so potentially, universally, catastrophically destructive? What does it say about our society that we're actually staring the end of that society as we know it in the face and arguing over how it's spelled?
But you're not at all embarrassed over falling for the same shit again, right?
After all, you merely reported what he said, right?
Fool you once, shame on him. He's fooled you twice.
Shame on you.
Because it sounded until the "stuck with the label 'denialist'" you were talking about those agreeing with the majority of scientists, citing nearly 100x as many scientists as those who pretend that AGW is wrong somehow, but are labelled with the name "econazi" or "watermelon" or "warmist".
You ARE a known denialist. Spouting denialist memes and sticking your fingers in your ears on the subject with a load of gobshite EVERY TIME climate change comes up.
PS "peer reviewed" doesn't mean Mad Lord Monkfish of Bleching looked at it.
And it doesn't mean it is right. Scientists have been wrong before, so merely citing one paper and then ignoring the problems with the paper (like G&T's 'Greenhouse Theory violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics" shit that not even Roger will swallow, and got lambasted by deniers for saying "No, the effect REALLY DOES exist") is why you're a denier. Denying that there's any problem with your ideas no matter what evidence against them there is.
That USians do not want to live like Kenyans is IRRELEVANT to the point. The point being that "It's massive population that causes this" is a load of shit.
How about Sweden? USians use 3-4x what a Swede does but has AN EVEN BETTER LIFE than USians.
But I guess you don't want to live like them, either, since they have a social net and that's all communist and like. Right?
"In general the Environment is better served by affluence than poverty for a given population"
Bullshit. See Sweden. See Kenya.
Fuck, you assholes keep whining about the IPCC scientists having money for this "scam" and how Al Gore has a huge mansion, which means that you believe that wealth is inimical to environmental care if you're talking about SOMEONE ELSE'S wealth, someone you don't like the politics of.
But when it's YOUR wealth, or someone you look up to, it's a wonderful green thing.
Green policies are a huge opportunity to develop and deploy new technology, create jobs and improve living standards. If your country can't implement them properly, that's your problem and you need to fix it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The DDT ban has killed NOBODY through unchecked malaria.
1) DDT was meant for specific use to stop mozzies, that use IS NOT banned
2) Mozzies are developing a resistance to DDT because of it's unregulated use
3) There are other antimalarials and anti-mozzie products which are still used
4) Nobody has managed to track down any even single-digit-percent of those millions. But the meme lives on. Proof isn't really wanted when it comes to "Teh gubmint regulashuns kills peeps!" complaints
People catch flu despite the flu jab, fuckwit.
You merely want to ignore the problem AND MAKE PRETEND it's other people's fault for it. Got it.
The IPCC reports are where you need to go.
Realclimate shows the science with the links to the paper publications.
That is where you will get, as you previously proclaimed: "reporting on climate change that presented facts without the hyperbole." And you will see little to no "hyperbole rammed down my throat" and would be able to get " the actual "science" reported."
That "getting the actual science reported" is what the IPCC does.
It's also done on Realclimate.
Just because they agree with the overwhelming evidence for AGW doesn't mean they're not doing that, no matter how much you want to imply (but are careful not to say).
You are claiming through logic that additional CO2 is a problem and that we MUST act in some fashion. Sorry, I do not accept that additional CO2 or additional warming is a problem. You are the one claiming its a problem, so its ON YOU to come up with a solution that I agree to. Otherwise, you are joining a long line of fascists who for the most part all believed they were doing the right thing for the greater good and ended up taking away the people's freedoms and forcing them to do what they wanted at the end of a gun.
Is that really what you want to do? Insult over half the population of the US in one breath and than insist that this half of the population must come up with a solution to "your problem" or bend over and take what you give out as a fascist over-lord? Good grief!
And why is it that government spending (initiating transactions) is such a bad thing in your world when you apparently believe that?
You are claiming through logic that additional CO2 is a problem and that we MUST act in some fashion.
No, actually I am not.
I am claiming that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the average temperature, and that the science of this is both understood and well supported by data. I am stating that the science is sound.
As to whether this means we "MUST" act, or in what way we should act-- that's a different question. It's one which could, I think, benefit from serious thinking rather than deliberately avoiding it, but that's not the claim I'm making, and I consider it a reasonable argument that can be made that one of the "solutions" to be considerd is to not do anything.
But the "solution" of "I've decided that I don't like any of the solutions that I think are possible therefore the science is wrong and the measurements are inaccurate" fails basic logic.
The fact that you don't like the solutions doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.
I have a suggestion. If you don't like the solutions, Mr. Anonymous Coward, let me propose that paying attention to the real world, you might work on coming up with an approach you do like. Quit attacking the science, if it is in fact the politics you don't like.
Some realistic thought, rather than invective, on what the consequences are and the pros and cons of various actions would be very useful.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
DDT is not banned everywhere and is still perfectly legal in those countries with a high death rate from malaria.
I don't believe I have seen anyone argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
I have, many times, right here on Slashdot.
CO2 is much higher than 15 years ago but temperatures remain pretty flat.
That's internal variability for you, it always messes up the short term trends. It's important to understand that you can subdivide any noisy graph into sections where the trend lines are increasing, flat or descending regardless of the overall direction, it's the very reason that cherry-picked time periods can be highly misleading. We are currently in a La Nina dominated period which pushes more warming into the ocean, when we switch back to an El Nino dominated period (like the 90s), atmospheric temperatures will appear to rise more rapidly than the average rate (because just the switch from La Nina to El Nino will increase atmospheric surface temperatures by around 1 degree).
Also, according to this, the warming contribution of CO2 tails off asypmtotically.
First of all, that was posted to Watts Up, which makes it highly suspect, Watts is very uncritical about anything that supports his point of view. Second, the IPCC reports estimate that a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels would contributes between 2 and 4 degrees of warming (which, I think, includes known feedbacks like water vapour increase), it would then take another doubling of that value to get another 2C to 4C of warming. I think the article you linked to uses the largely discredited estimate of 1C per doubling, and I suspect it doesn't include any of the known immediate feedbacks (like the water vapour feedback).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up, and the claims that global warming due to CO2 will be catastrophic don't seem to be proven.
The primary problem is less likely to be "catastrophic" warming and more likely to be significantly inconveniencing warming. The kind that will cost many trillions of dollars to adapt to which, of course, will lead to higher taxes and possibly lower standards of living. It's estimated to be less expensive (by several trillion dollars) to reduce emissions and shift to alternative power sources than to actually adapt to the changes.
For example, the "hot spot" seems to be missing.
According to the explanation on Skeptical Science, the hot spot is likely to be "missing" simply because it's actually very difficult to measure the termperature of an indistinct patch of air in the upper atmosphere. You can read the linked page for the detailed explanation.
Of course I hope global warming is overrated, because the world is still dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. If the consequences really will be dire, we will find out.
I hope so too, because it does seem like we're going to find out.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Quoting ThinkProgress as a source of facts exposes your latent bias against facts. Go find a reputable source and get back to us.
Organization? You must be joking..
The problem is there is no evidence that the regulations would be "massive", cause "higher unemployment", appreciabl increase costs, or reduce progress. British Columbia, for example, implemented a carbon tax and it has reduced emissions substancially and had neglible impact on employment, prices or progress while competing with other North American jurisdictions that don't have a carbon tax.
Really, the libertarian alarmist paranoia on this issue is a bit much.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
You do not have to believe me. Just look at some of the environmental laws we already have and try to find a way in which they are not fucking stupid.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Nice argument. Did you learn to make a point like that from unionized public teachers?
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Fuck your anti-environmentalist, anti-science propaganda.
Your insightful comment is currently modded "insightful" as it deserves. In the past such a truthful evaluation of Slashdot's pro-pollution lobby would get modded "flamebait" at best.
so it's pretty embarrassing that he 'makes a nearly identical blunder' all over again.
This is not about embarrassment or reputation. This is about our planet. Come on, guys.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
You're painting Libertarians with a pretty broad brush. Although the vast majority would oppose REGULATION of carbon emissions, a carbon TAX (of the Pigovian type) resolves a crucial externality issue which is fair game for any libertarian who is more than just a corporate shill. Ensuring a level playing field, like defense, is one of the legitimate purposes of government. There are of course people who disagree with that notion but they're more properly considered Anarcho-Capitalists rather than Libertarians.
so you're saying jobs are more important than preventing everything on the planet from dying, and therefore we should do nothing?
instead we should just keep the violins playing as the Spaceship Earth-tanic becomes uninhabitable then?
and thats not even touching the fundamentally faulty assumptions you make:
-the regulations wont do any good (not true)
-the regulations will lead to unemployment (not true)
-the regulations will lead to higher costs (possibly true, but too generic a blanket statement to be taken at face value)
-less progress (define progress)
-for nothing (redundant with first assumption, still not true)
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/17/ridleys-riposte-to-john-abraham/
Guest essay by Dr. Matt Ridley
On a blog called Desmog Blog, John Abraham has criticized my recent article in the Wall Street Journal on climate sensitivity. Here’s my piece http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html
And here’s his piece: http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/16/john-abraham-slams-matt-ridley-climate-denial-op-ed-wall-street-journal.
It’s a poor response, characterized by inaccurate representation of what I said, even down to actual misquoting. In the whole article, he puts just four words in quotation marks as written by me, yet in doing so he misses out a whole word: 20% of the quotation. Remarkable. If I did that, I would be very embarrassed.
He directly contradicts the IPCC’s report on extreme weather, which found no link between current storms and man-made climate change; he is apparently unaware that the rising costs of extreme weather are entirely caused by rising investment and insurance values, not rising quantities of extreme weather, as even a small amount of research would have told him ( http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/follow-up-q-from-senate-epw.html ); he falsely claims that I say rising sea levels will be beneficial, when I wrote no such thing; and he wholly ignores the benefits of mild climate change, even though I was careful to say that the key thing is to compare costs and benefits. It is possible that he does not know the meaning of the word “net”: he certainly shows no understanding of the concept.
“General statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media,” said climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently. “It’s this popular perception that global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time, even though if anyone thinks about that for 10seconds they realize that’s nonsense.”
Mr Abraham’s main point is that up to 2 degrees C of warming is likely to do net harm. For this surprising claim, he produces noevidence. None. The evidence suggest the opposite – that less than two degrees of warming will cut excess winter deaths, increase average rainfall, extendgrowing seasons and increase rates of photosynthesis in wild and agricultural ecosystems. “A global warming of less than 2.5C could have no significant effect on overall food production,” says the UNFCC website.
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/climate_change_information_kit/items/288.php
See links here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165188913000092%00 and here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/winter-kills-excess-deaths-in-the-winter-months/.
And yet it is he who accuses me of “non-science nonsense”. It’s truly disgraceful that a tenured academic, as I assume Mr Abraham to be, should make so many mistakes and yet feel free to hurl unsubstantiated abuse at another human being, however desperate he may be. In writing about climate change I am careful not to make unprovoked ad-hominem attacks – until attacked in this way.
I always play the ball, not the man. Mr Abra
and heres where you lose the last remaining shred of credibilty you may have had, however slight.
He said the same thing everyone else has said, in simpler terms and not as nicely as the others.
You can stop posting now, your opinions, having no basis in reality or logic, are invalid and not even worth discussing.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Just go to the Seattle Times and read some of the actual scientific research from one of the world's top research universities in the article (two-part) on climate change
Now. Stop whining. Do something. But get your head out of the sand.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Not recently, but I have a few (5 or 6?) years ago. I remember one by a self proclaimed biologist who claimed that CO2 is a natural byproduct of life and therefore can't be dangerous. I kid you not, I remember it was a very popular argument with AGW (as it was called) deniers at the time. Those types of pages don't show up in top Google searches anymore because it's been so easily disproved by anyone with a modicum of understanding of blackbody radiation and absorption spectrums, so its page rank is probably near the bottom now. I mean this is junior high school stuff. But they were out there, and probably still are there now if you knew where to look. I just don't want to waste my time to try to find the links.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Your post was a "Truckload of Bullshit!"
By your very own logic I win. You can quit posting now.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Not sure. In part I'm put off by how hard both sides are pushing.
And pre-industrial warmer and cooler periods of the climate.
And hurricane predictions which were wrong.
And the various model failures.
Right now, I could support modest changes in our consumption and pollution control but I wouldn't feel confident to plunge the world into depression with draconian measures.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The truth is this.. It doesnt particularly matter. NONE of you are going to live the lifestyles needed to reverse the change you claim is caused by man. Stop using your cars, stop consuming more than 1200 calories a day, stop eating meat, STOP using electricity.. especially the beloved internet and computers you spew all this crap on. And NONE of you are willing to support the REAL fix for the proplem.. over breeeding and controlling it. The other problem is the feds.. most of you hypocritical alarmist jackasses HATE the government when its convenient for you.. pot laws, software patents, spying on your phone.. eww baaaadddd, evill government .. but you fucking idiots want to give those same power hungry psycopaths the power to control every aspect of our energy supply, food supply and water supply all in the name of slowing or stopping climate change??? Are you all really this fucking stupid? you come up with or support brillaint ideas like carbon tax credits or higher gas taxes.. and you dont think that SAME government isnt going to abuse those solutions for political gain? For people that appear to be so intelligent.. you all are really naive' or just love the taste of government dick so much you cant fathom living without it. .. but take away their gas and their car? You take awy their ability to earn.
Im also sick of seeing endless diatribes from jackass researchers that we all need to ride our bikes more, stop using our cars, start shitting in buckets and drinking our pee.. when they live 3 miles from their lab in their 800k home and work on their own schedules. they'd suck a mile of dicks to get a grant and you all simply refuse to accept they might.. just.. be.. a little teeny tiny bit biased? We have to have solutions that work for EVERYONE not just entitled academics and fumb fucking liberal slashdotters who take 5 minutes bus rides around urban shitholes to work and back. Tens of MILLIONS of people are living on 20-40k a year... slogging out 20-30 mile commutes each way EVERY FUCKING DAY to pay their rent and buy food and try to have a little left over to enjoy whats left of their slavish lives.. and you fucking crybabies whine and bitch about global warming like its just some minor inconvenience we can all tolerate. That little bit they have left will evaporate INSTANTLY if we're paying 8 bucks a gallon for gas or the price of electricity triples.
I got news for most of you.. we cant afford what you want, the majority of people in this country will not tolerate more taxes, higher gas prices, higher electricity prices. they will give up. They will settle for shitty lower paying jobs or just stay on unemployment.. because given the chocie between sitting at home with no disposable income.. and working/driving 50-60 hours a week with no disposable income.. guess what... this economic engine will grind to a halt. Didnt the mogtage meltdown teach any of you anything? look what happened when hundreds of thousands of people simply walked away from their loans.. we were lucky. people can rent, they can eat hamburger for a while
You all are a buch of fucking arm chair scientists who sit and and masturbate each other with no though whatsoever to the consequences of ANY of the policies you so blindly support. Our economy is an engine.. one greased by cheap and reliable energy and the massive ability to rapidly and cheaply move goods, services and labor and the motivation of the population to take part in it because they feel like they are going to get something, anything.. even a crumb of reward from it. So when you sit here talking about climate change.. alarmists, denialists and all the other bullshit stupid, meaningless fucking buzzwords you shit out of your mouth and keyboard.. remember that at the end of all the policy and legislation that may come about as the result are hundreds of millions of people who need to get to work and buy food in the HERE and NOW.. not in the future where the oceans MAY rise.. or the caps MAY melt or the temperature MAY go up 2 degrees OR 6 degrees..
Climate change will be positivev? Tell this to the people that die, or impacted by, the increased strength of hurricanes, increased number of tornadoes, heavier snow storms, and now lets look at the wild fires and flooding here in Colorado and elsewhere.
THINGS ARE GOING TO GET WORSE
I'm in Climate Denial Stage 6. I don't believe anything that causes a tax increase. Any connection between CO2 and more taxes is against my religion.
Its a spin doctor
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
You're painting Libertarians with a pretty broad brush. Although the vast majority would oppose REGULATION of carbon emissions, a carbon TAX (of the Pigovian type) resolves a crucial externality issue which is fair game for any libertarian who is more than just a corporate shill. Ensuring a level playing field, like defense, is one of the legitimate purposes of government....
That would be logical. However, for every libertarian I've ever met, as soon as the word "tax" is used their brains overheat and shut down.
First it was global warming. But when British courts found Gore to be a fraud, you changed it to "Climate Change". I realize that Global Warming was simply not defendable, but give it a break. You're almost as lame as those who still believe Obama is an American citizen! You're pathetic. The climate is certainly changing. No arguing that. But you're only role is to figure out how to ride the wave. You cannot change it. I suppose you think that NASA got it wrong too?
Here's what NOAA has to say month by month for 2013
January Global Highlights - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/1
The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for January 2013 tied with 1995 as the ninth warmest January since records began in 1880, at 0.54C (0.97F) above the 20th century average of 12.0C (53.6F).
The globally-averaged land surface temperature for January 2013 was the 13th warmest January on record, at 0.90C (1.62F) above average. The average land surface temperature across the Southern Hemisphere was record warm for the month.
The globally-averaged ocean surface temperature was the eighth warmest January on record, at 0.41C (0.74F) above average.
February Global Highlights - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/2
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for February 2013 tied with 2003 as the ninth warmest on record, at 0.57C (1.03F) above the 20th century average of 12.1C (53.9F).
The global land surface temperature was 1.00C (1.80F) above the 20th century average of 3.2C (37.8F), tying with 2010 as the 11th warmest February on record. For the ocean, the February global sea surface temperature was 0.42C (0.76F) above the 20th century average of 15.9C (60.6F), making it the eighth warmest February on record.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the December–February period was 0.51C (0.92F) above the 20th century average of 12.1C (53.8F), making it the 12th warmest such period on record.
The December–February worldwide land surface temperature was 0.71C (1.28F) above the 20th century average, tying with 1992 as the 15th warmest such period on record. The global ocean surface temperature for the same period was 0.43C (0.77F) above the 20th century average and was the eighth warmest such period on record.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–February period (year-to-date) was 0.56C (1.01F) above the 20th century average of 12.1C (53.8F), tying with 2005 as the ninth warmest such period on record.
March Global Highlights - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/3
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for March 2013 tied with 2006 as the 10th warmest on record, at 0.58C (1.04F) above the 20th century average of 12.3C (54.1F).
The global land surface temperature was 1.06C (1.91F) above the 20th century average of 5.0C (40.8F), the 11th warmest March on record. For the ocean, the March global sea surface temperature was 0.41C (0.74F) above the 20th century average of 15.9C (60.7F), making it the ninth warmest March on record.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–March period (year-to-date) was 0.58C (1.04F) above the 20th century average of 12.3C (54.1F), the eighth warmest such period on record.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Here's what NOAA has to say month by month for 2013 (continued)
April Global Highlights - looks like an error has this page pointing to the June update so details can be found instead at
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/april-2013-global-climate-update
May Global Highlights - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/5
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2013 tied with 1998 and 2005 as the third warmest on record, at 0.66C (1.19F) above the 20th century average of 14.8C (58.6F).
The global land surface temperature was 1.11C (2.00F) above the 20th century average of 11.1C (52.0F), also the third warmest May on record. For the ocean, the May global sea surface temperature was 0.49C (0.88F) above the 20th century average of 16.3C (61.3F), tying with 2003 and 2009 as the fifth warmest May on record.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the March–May period was 0.59C (1.06F) above the 20th century average of 13.7C (56.7F), tying with 2004 as the eighth warmest such period on record.
The March–May worldwide land surface temperature was 0.97C (1.75F) above the 20th century average, the 11th warmest such period on record. The global ocean surface temperature for the same period was 0.45C (0.81F) above the 20th century average and tied with 2001 as the seventh warmest such period on record.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–May period (year-to-date) was 0.59C (1.06F) above the 20th century average of 13.1C (55.5F), the eighth warmest such period on record.
June Global Updates - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/6
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2013 tied with 2006 as the fifth highest on record, at 0.64C (1.15F) above the 20th century average of 15.5C (59.9F).
The global land surface temperature was 1.05C (1.89F) above the 20th century average of 13.3C (55.9F), marking the third warmest June on record. For the ocean, the June global sea surface temperature was 0.48C (0.86F) above the 20th century average of 16.4C (61.5F), the 10th warmest June on record.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–June period (year-to-date) was 0.59C (1.06F) above the 20th century average of 13.5C (56.3F), tying with 2003 as the seventh warmest such period on record.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Here's what NOAA has to say month by month for 2013 (continued)
July Global Highlights - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/7
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2013 was the sixth highest on record, at 0.61C (1.10F) above the 20th century average of 15.8C (60.4F).
The global land surface temperature was 0.78C (1.40F) above the 20th century average of 14.3C (57.8F), marking the eighth warmest July on record. For the ocean, the July global sea surface temperature was 0.54C (0.97F) above the 20th century average of 16.4C (61.5F), the fifth warmest July on record.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–July period (year-to-date) was 0.59C (1.06F) above the 20th century average of 13.8C (56.9F), tying with 2003 as the sixth warmest such period on record.
August Global Highlights - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/8
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2013 tied with 2005 as the fourth highest in the 1880–2013 record, at 0.62C (1.12F) above the 20th century average of 15.6C (60.1F).
The global land surface temperature was 0.77C (1.39F) above the 20th century average of 13.8C (56.9F), the 11th warmest August on record. For the global oceans, the August average sea surface temperature was 0.57C (1.03F) above the 20th century average of 16.4C (61.4F), tying with 1998, 2003, 2005, and 2009 as the record highest for August.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the June–August period was 0.62C (1.12F) above the 20th century average of 15.6C (60.1F), tying with 2009 as the fifth warmest such period on record.
The June–August worldwide land surface temperature was 0.85C (1.53F) above the 20th century average, the seventh warmest such period on record. The global ocean surface temperature for the same period was 0.53C (0.95F) above the 20th century average, the fifth warmest June–August on record.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the year-to-date (January–August) was 0.59C (1.06F) above the 20th century average of 14.0C (57.3F), tying with 2003 as the sixth warmest such period on record.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Yes, California, the state with an economy big enough to be self sustaining, which includes Silicon Valley, Hollywood, wine country, San Francisco and more has a problem with industry because of regulation. Got it, makes sense.
But the State is broke. In massive debt. Prisons are filled and under federal receivership. Local municipalities are filling for bankruptcy. The state is taxcing everything in sight and businesses are fleeing. Revenues are down and spending is up. Spending is ALWAYS up. AND, The Governor still want to build a high speed train between San Diego and San Fransisco. The problem is the costs have gone up about 700% and the train now goes from nowhere north of LA to nowhere south of San Fransisco and will no go fast.
California will be one of the first States to file for Bankruptcy.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
I once trusted the WSJ for it's journalistic integrity, but now that Rupert Murdock owns the paper, I don't trust them at all. Look at anything else he owns especially in England and you clearly see the results of blind devotion to their beliefs.
One must recall the Rupert Murdoch owns the WSJ, and has, oh maybe some teensy bit of say in it's content policy. You simply can't trust the WSJ after this acquisition . . . imho :)
Rupert consistently muddies the water with confusing statements.
See Rupert Murdoch’s Newspapers Mislead Public On Climate Change and Environment .
We've already discussed this. Elop is the trope-namer for the "Peter Pinnacle", which means: 'to get promoted so high and to be so unqualified for your job that the company tells you that you can name your price just to go away.'
http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/08/25/1741200/inspired-by-the-peter-principle-the-peter-pinnacle
P.S. Tomi Ahonen makes a pretty convincing case that Elop turned gold into lead.
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2013/09/the-do-it-yourself-elop-analysis.html
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely