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
"Whoops! I meant to make the same argument with a *different* paper!"
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.
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.
If you want clarity in climate science then try browsing the articles on realclimate. Of course you could just read the IPCC reports, they are easy to find on the net too.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
He needs one of these:
http://www.dyson.com/Fans/FansAndHeaters/Fans.aspx
They're great for climate change.
If you want clarity in climate science then try browsing the articles on realclimate. Of course you could just read the IPCC reports, they are easy to find on the net too.
Thing is, I can't tell if you're a) trying to be funny, b) being sarcastic, or c) trolling.
My people meter must be out of whack today...
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
The bottom line is that lying works when you are dealing with low-information people.
Table-ized A.I.
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!
If I wanted to read the science I would, and I have, it's something I have done for the last few decades, which is quite a few years before it was politically correct to do so. That isn't the point though, the point is that "science" isn't supposed to be politically charged, it's supposed to be "science".
Science, and reporting on science should rise about the type of petty hyperbole that I see on infecting many other types of reporting. When I read articles or studies about astronomy they tend to be fairly hyperbole free (unless it's an asteroid with the slightest chance of hitting the earth). The same thing applies when I read about almost any other subject that relates to science.
The point of reporting on science is that a reporter is reading through the studies (which number in the thousands, are quite dry reading and too often pay-walled) and reporting on what is new). This is their job and if I find something of interest that I can go and check out the source.
Now climb down out of your god damn ivory tower and get your nose out of the air back to the real world where the average person does not have the time to spend their day reading studies. Sit down, pause and think about it for just a moment and you just might realize that hyperbole free reporting is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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?
The word was used properly. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal published an apologetic for climate-change denial—a defense of their previous statements. Today, Climate Progress debunked that apologetic.
There has been no apology.
Words are important.
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.
One of these days I really hope they'll add a "I'm an idiot and want to indicate that I no longer stand by this comment" button here on Slashdot, since this is one of those moments for me. I stand corrected, and with good reason, since I was apparently just skimming the summary. Honestly and sincerely, thank you for calling me out on not reading it properly, since I definitely deserved to be called out on it. :)
DDT is not banned everywhere and is still perfectly legal in those countries with a high death rate from malaria.
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?