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!"
Perhaps the author is a Birther? :)
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
He also admits, he doesn't know what the heck he's talking about:
"my objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151
He's not an expert on the current science. Taking his advice is like asking a guy who wrote COBOL in the 60's about something like open stack.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
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"
He's a physicist, not a climatologist. He certainly would be better in some respects at assessing the models, but nowhere near as competent as, oh, I dunno, a climatologist. On the flipside, if a climatologist starts making grand declarations about quantum electroydnamics, I'm sure I'd be turning to Dyson for a rebuttal.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
He needs one of these:
http://www.dyson.com/Fans/FansAndHeaters/Fans.aspx
They're great for climate change.
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.
When "scientists" don't behave like scientists (and Dyson should know how a scientist behaves), it should give EVERYONE pause.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
Ah yes the Dyson "air multiplier". No yuppster domicile is complete without one. Most likely accompanied by a Bose Wave Music System III accessorized with Monster Cables and a media shelf packed with M. Night Shyamalan's filmography*, Goodwill copies of Nietzsche and Kerouac book-ended by a bonsai pruned like a Christmas tree and maybe a felt fluorescent "I Am Not A Hipster" poster above their terrarium containing their pet tarantula named "Vlad". - - *I've actually seen this...everything after I just extrapolated.
Yeah! Stupid Melanesians! Micronesians! Polynesians! WTF were they thinking?
If you post it, they will read.
And doubtless when you're proven wrong you'll be back with more fabrications.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
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.
Because you and Dyson share the same religion.
Then what explains his behaving like a creationist, and why does anyone listen to him?
That sir, is a terrible thing to say about the guy who wrote COBOL!
Cheers,
Bruce.
Bruce A. Knack
Silicon Surfers
Start here. Wean yourself off the incorrect idea that the only supporting evidence is a bunch of computer models.
What I heard is the range for sensitivity expanded some but the center hasn't moved much. IIRC it went from 2 - 5.5C in the AR4 to now 1.5 - 6C in the AR5. That doesn't sound like the overestimated it. The change doesn't make much difference.
Of course it's a truism that all models are wrong because it's impossible to fully model the real world. The real question is are the results useful? But climate models are better than any other method we have to predict climate. The scientists who use these models are well aware of their limitations and take that into account when they release the results. Gavin Schmidt, one of the leading scientists in climate modeling just wrote a post on his blog titled On mismatches between models and observations. It's very open about the difficulties of climate modeling. Even if you think RC is climate change propaganda you ought to read it because there's lots of ammunition in there for you to pick at climate models with.
Well, they managed to live through at least one other global warming and then global cooling cycle without benefit of modern technology so why are we (or they) worried about another one?
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
What sort of "intolerance to criticism" would Freeman Dyson have to """sceptics"""" who continuously denied the reality of the overwhelming scientific evidence for something he knows very well is 100% true, like quantum mechanics?
Speaking of the anti-science bullshit, here's a prime example. The above is just a spittle-heavy ad hominem fallacy. If in the future, you ever want to write an argument on this subject that is taken seriously, then start by a) taking the opposition seriously, and b) don't stoop to self parody.
And if that selfishly motivated denialism could substantially exacerbate catastrophic consequences for the entirety of human civilization?
You don't have "catastrophic consequences", hence your argument is irrelevant. My view is that you probably don't know enough about "climate change" to have a scientifically worthwhile opinion. Some people get Jesus or Allah. You got climate change.
"It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong" - Freeman Dyson.
NONE of the models in the IPCC come close to predicting the current pause in temperature (nearly 17 years long at this point) - meaning those theories put together by all the smart people are wrong. That's science. When facts and theory collide, theory should lose.
That's not religion, that's not creationism, that's fundamental science. Something that Dyson really understands - and anyone who says otherwise shows they do not
.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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?
Also, stop repeating such mindless misinformation. Go get some actual fucking solid information from a reliable source. Your "pause in [sic] temperature" is an outright dishonest cherry-pick of the real data. "each of the last 12 years (2001–2012) features as one of the 14 warmest on record". For fuck sakes.
Just for the record James Hansen has a PhD in Astrophysics and started out studying the atmosphere of Venus and other planets before turning his attention to the Earth. Physics is a broad field that covers a lot of territory from quantum dynamics to mechanics to climate physics and no person can know it all in detail.
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.
Pretty much. Exactly what did your sarcasm intend because it proved the AC's point?
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.
There is no pause. Please inform yourself - it's embarrassing.
You are woefully uninformed about global temperatures. Seriously. This is sad.
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?
Don't confuse the relationship between micro- and macro-climate. It's the difference between telling someone the average percentage of horses that'll finish in all the races across all the tracks in the country this weekend (the macro) against which horse will win any particular race (the micro). Micro-predictions and their relative difficulty have no bearing on the importance of macro-predictions and one's ability to investigate and discrepancies after the fact.
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?
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 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..
Way to go genius. That does not prove the world is warming. If that was true, than since the last 12 years of my life have been "the tallest years of my life" this would mean I am still growing. It would mean every adult human on this planet including your grandmother is still growing taller. Sorry, you are just ignorant of basic statistics and for fucks sake as you say, learn some basic STAT.
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?
Right. The WSJ author has an agenda. He's having a bit of difficulty finding facts to back up said agenda so he's forced to twist whatever he can find to satisfy his readers.
Unfortunately, readers rarely even see the retractions, apologies, etc. that are published after an article is found to be incorrect. Let me guess: the apology was not on the editorial page where the original article was published. Instead it was likely found on the lower left corner of the page where the WSJ telephone numbers are listed; a real popular place to bury something that the editors would rather people didn't spend much time reading.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
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.
There is no pause. Please inform yourself - it's embarrassing.
Some information for you: Scientific American: Is the Pacific Ocean Responsible for a Pause in Global Warming?
NPR: A Cooler Pacific May Be Behind Recent Pause In Global Warming
USA Today: Pacific Ocean cools, flattening global warming
But maybe the UK Met Office admitting it's been flat for 16 years, or just looking at the HADCRUT4 data would be a better source?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
If you think that the way the critics are treated is bad?
Climate scientists have to deal with harassing lawsuits from Republican attorney generals (a climate change "skeptic") and baseless accusations of fraud from "skeptics". Makes me think the "skeptics" aren't really as honest, independent, nor sincere, as they claim to be. Every day "skeptics" accuse Climate scientists of being in some shadowy international conspiracy.
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
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.
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.
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?
Bravo, bravo.
That's just your problem, I'm not.
The tiresome fool who thinks he's clever.
Do geologists not have "experiments, measurements and models" because they say the Grand Caynon was formed by erosion over millions of years? How about evolutionary biologists who study the fossil record of humans or horses over millions of years? Of course they have measurements and models, and so do climate scientists. Did you think about this nonsense at all before throwing it up onto your keyboard?
But this is beating a dead horse, because when even when scientists paid by the Kochs to deny climate look at the evidence and say "yeah, there's climate change", it's time for you clowns to get the fuck out of here.
Hand waving. You might want to Google the "scientific method" and "peer review" before going on about "sins" and "athletic training" and who knows who many other analogies that have no relevance to how science works.
Way to go genius. The point is that the last 12 years being the warmest on record directly contradicts the lie that we've been in a 17 year long "pause" in global warming. For fucks sake, learn some basic reading comprehension.
What they AC said: there is no "pause".
Some basic reality checking for you: the only thing you're doing is the time-honored denialist tactic of pointing to events and saying "see! see! this proves climate change is a myth!" without bothering to know what you're talking about. You know, stuff like record blizzards hitting New England or an increase in snowfall at the poles, without mentioning that warmer air carries more moisture.
You clowns have gotten so bad there's an entire database of debunked denialist arguments because when one of your talking points falls apart you just move on to the next one.
It's not like it wasn't obvious. You're acting out of faith to a concept despite all evidence to the contrary, same as Jenny McCarthy, high priestess of the anti-vaxxers.
Blah blah blah blah blah. Hand wave and flop around as much as you want, it's not going to change the fact that you're standing with Dyson on a faith-based talking point rather than bothering with coming up with actual science.
Enjoy your religious denialism.
Simple question: has the global average temperature changed over the last 200 months in any statistically significant way?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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
Government spending isn't such a bad thing, government taking is.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
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?
A simply stupid question, you mean. No, strike that - a painfully stupid question. If you don't know what temperatures have been like for the last 15 years why are you bothering to pretend you know what you're talking about in a discussion on climate change? And that's before getting to the fact that the answer to your "question" has been posted multiple times in this thread alone.
Do also jump into discussions on U.S. politics and then ask for evidence that Barack Obama is black?
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