Slashdot Mirror
We Had All Better Hope These Scientists Are Wrong About the Planet's Future (washingtonpost.com)
Less than 24 hours since we read this dire climate study, an anonymous reader writes from a Washington Post report about several more concerning things: James Hansen, a former NASA scientist, says his new study suggests the impact of global warming will be quicker and more catastrophic than generally envisioned. The research invokes collapsing ice sheets, violent megastorms and even the hurling of boulders by giant waves in its quest to suggest that even 2 degrees Celsius of global warming above pre-industrial levels would be far too much. Hansen has called it the most important work he has ever done. "I think almost everybody who is really familiar with both paleo and modern is now very concerned that we are approaching, if we have not passed, the points at which we have locked in really big changes for young people and future generations," Hansen said.
If being a scientist requires the ability to look dispassionately at the evidence, Hansen's not a scientist.
The planet will kill off all of the humans and then get back to its regularly scheduled program. We're just a glitch.
Dude the world has been ending since the 70s, except back then it was global cooling. AL gore swore up and down that the coasts would be under water by now 15 years ago. Just because you just started reading news doesn't mean there wasn't any before. Fear mongering gets readers. It's simple.
Wait, this article is from a scientist, who's been studying atmospheres for years.
The video is from Al Gore.
And you equate them? And then try to pretend *I* can't think critically?
Dude, you better pick a day to stop sniffing glue.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
As for Hansen's paper referred to in this article, it tries to make a case for the dangers of climate change by looking for analogues for current climate change in the past. But he clearly starts out with the goal of showing that climate change is very dangerous and then tries to concoct scenarios and fit observations to reach that conclusion. Hansen is not objective anymore, and his papers and conclusions are not credible anymore.
Good thing is: none of this really matters. Politically, it is impossible for Western leaders to have much influence over fossil fuel use, and deployment of renewable energy progresses at its own pace and as it makes economic sense, no matter what nutcases like Hansen say or want.
Well, lead the way. Nothing like leading by example.
It would be great to study the subject objectively. Unfortunately, that's effectively impossible. The only way for the average person to "study" this is to refer to published scientific data. Unfortunately, significant portions of that data has proven to be skewed and manipulated, so we can't trust any of it.
This is further compounded by the fact that our modern science system is not based on the pursuit of truth, but the pursuit of funding. There are TRILLIONS of dollars and MASSIVE amounts of political control at stake in proving that global warming is a thing (oops, did I say global warming? I meant climate change. Gotta hedge your bets...), in the form of carbon taxes, rebuilding the entire power grid to use "green energy" (to generate power that costs 10x the market rate, like we have here in Ontario, Canada), "green" consumer products at 4x the price. Not to mention the depressive effects on the overall economy, because people are spending more to get the same stuff, which paves the way for the socialists' wet dream -- a population who can't live without government assistance.
So the traditional scientific method where disproving a hypothesis is as exciting as proving one is gone out the window, because there are no funding dollars for research that doesn't achieve the economic and politico-social goals of those in power.
Objective data doesn't exist because there is a disincentive to publish it.
This is why AGW pseudo-skeptics are like Creationists. No matter how many times you demonstrate some meme they brainlessly repeat was never true, they just turn around and make the same claim again. You simply cannot debate someone who is so divorced from reality that they think some slogan they picked up off a Heartland-funded website somehow falsifies an entire scientific discipline.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You're a god damn fool. If all of this is poppycock but we still act, there isn't much of a problem. If it isn't poppycock and we don't act then the results could be catastrophic. I'd rather we err in the side of caution only a fool would choose to do otherwise.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
Science means discussing things with people who disagree who actually have the vaguest fucking idea what it is that is being discussed. Science isn't about scientists debating with morons on the Internet, and pretending that their pseudo-skepticism is even in the tiniest way a real critique of the theory.
Or perhaps you imagine that advocates of the Electric Universe or Young Earth Creationism somehow just automatically deserve a pedestal because they have enough neural wiring to make any old claim against established science.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Also, "what else is new"? Certainly not the actual words of the summary, which are basically a few sentences taken verbatim from the Washington Post article.
I know complaining about editing is usually pointless. But...
an anonymous reader writes from a Washington Post report about several more concerning things:
... is simply NOT accurate. The anonymous reader didn't write "from" the Washington Post. He/she didn't write anything, but instead cobbled together a few sentences which were written by Washington Post reporter Chris Mooney.
If you want to take a summary verbatim from TFA, at least credit the words to the person who actually wrote them, rather than an AC.
I think his is lead and he's been chewing on it for far too long.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
| When I was in school there was constant hysteria over the ozone layer. By the year 2000 we were all supposed to be blind and dying of skin cancer because the ozone layer would be mostly gone.
It was an actual, serious problem, and still is, but is not getting worse because the planet took concerted action to fix it.
Acid rain didn't just "go away" either spontaneously, it slowed significantly because humans, back then, actually listened to scientists and were less aggressively selfish and stupid than regarding global warming.
The general public does not make a distinction, and their votes will be needed for any serious effort to address climate change. Shrill alarmism forecasting global catastrophe is counter productive, because when it is later debunked, it reduces the credibility of all climate scientists. The 2007 IPCC report did immeasurable harm to climate change efforts, and this report appears to be making similar exaggerations.
You're right. When an uneducated radio preacher starts sermonizing about the end of the world and for evidence holds up a book written by a bunch of ignorant stone age goat herders, we Atheists go off our rocker because it's an amoral shitshow. Especially when the key question gets asked which is "Okay, so what should we do?" and the answer is to mumble to ourselves... I see that person as an idiot charlatan and treat them accordingly.
However, when a scientist says "We're fucked and here's why..." and then plops down 50 years worth of climate data showing there's a direct correlation between our use of fossil fuels, the rise in CO2 levels and the rise in ocean level, ambient ocean temperature and acidification of the oceans. Moreover when other scientists look at different data sets and corroborate those findings. I generally take these person seriously, giant boulder hurling hyperbole aside.
I presume your reference to the preacher is to Harold Camping... Note is apology is laughable at best.
Scientists speak without certainty because they work in a world where new evidence can change their world view. The religious nuts speak with certainty because no evidence, however good can change their beliefs.
As for magical government regulations, you lost me on that. I'm yet to see scientists come out and say "Phew, good thing we passed that carbon tax or we'd all be screwed by now!"
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Pedantics aside, it'd be helpful if these folks would stop running around claiming the sky is falling unless/until it actually IS falling.
The problem is once we reach the point where the sky is actually falling it's far too late to do much about it. There are no instant fixes to the anthropogenic global warming problem.
Relax. Although the submitter's write-up uses the binding "will", the actual paper is about as firm as the (in)famous Geico commercial. The one about 15 minutes, that could save you 15%. Or more...
It is safer that way — when the time comes and the mongered fear does not materialize, the "researchers" can shrug and offer you some new and improved fears to worry about without having to explain their past mistakes. "We never said it will happen, only that it could."
Pedantically speaking, such statements are not falsifiable and thus non-scientific. Consequently, any "scientists" using them in a supposedly "scientific" article is a con-artist...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Granted.
However, this Chicken Little PR campaign is only working against their interests. You want to know the origins of Climate Change Deniers? It's not political; the GOP is only capitalizing on public sentiment. It comes from, and is fueled by, failed prediction after failed prediction to the point where we could have iron clad, easy to understand proof that the world will end tomorrow and no one would believe it. It's gone on long enough, in fact, that we could have LA and SF under 100 ft of water, and people would still doubt it was climate change. That's the legacy of this DoomsDay campaign.
I'll admit the media played a large role in this. They never could do science reporting right. However, having scientists publicly reinforce these perceptions is a huge issue.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that there is an infinite amount of oil, or that the production (biogenesis) of oil is greater than or equal to demand? Because otherwise, isn't "peak oil" a mathematical certainty? Or am I missing something?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
It is scary to think that a portion of the population believes that higher education belongs to the left. I suspect that most others on the right also cringe at these remarks.
Citation needed. Could you please point me to the "failed prediction after failed prediction" you're talking about?
Last I saw, global temperatures were doing an excellent job tracking predictions made over the last 40 years. Ditto for sea level rise, which is actually happening a bit faster than most scientists had predicted.
Let me hazard a guess: you don't really pay much attention to scientists to find out what they're saying. If you did, you'd find that most of their predictions are cautious and very carefully qualified. Instead, you listen pundits who like to rant about the "Doomsday Predictions!!!! of the Scientists!!! who say we're all about to die!!! Who do they think we are???? We know better than to believe that."
Am I right?
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Well, some people can't tell the difference between "skepticism" and "wishful thinking". A true skeptic tends to doubt everything on an even-handed basis. A wishful thinker doubts things that would be unpleasant if they were true.
One thing an accomplished skeptic understands is that evidence for complicated real-world questions is always contradictory. This makes his job hard because he's got to judge which side of a question has the preponderance of evidence in its favor. On the other hand it makes the job of a wishful thinker easier, because there will always be evidence to support whatever he wishes to believe. All he has to do is cherry-pick.
One of the best exercises for a true skeptic is to spend a few hours with Google Scholar and tracing the shift in consensus from the 1950s, when most scientists thought the planet was entering a cooling phase, until the 2000s when the consensus was strongly in the other direction. This will dispel any notion that the consensus just changed overnight for no reason (or because of some kind of conspiracy). There was a thorough and vigorous debate with both sides represented.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.