Slashdot Mirror
National Geographic Releases Alarming Climate Change Movie 'Before the Flood' On YouTube (youtube.com)
dryriver writes: National Geographic's Climate Change movie "Before The Flood," featuring actor-activist Leonardo DiCaprio, can now be viewed freely on Youtube. One of the most interesting points in the movie comes at around the 23 minute mark. At 23 minutes, scientist Michael E. Mann, famous for co-discovering the "hockey stick graph" via eigenvector based climate field reconstruction (CFR), recounts how media like the Wall Street Journal demonized him for his research, how he received death threats from unknown sources, how Congress grilled him about whether his scientific methods are credible, and how he even received an envelope in the mail with strange white powder in it. The movie is worth watching because it shows very clearly that a) man-made climate change is happening and that b) the negative effects of climate change are already impacting many areas of the world.
"rogue", not "rouge"...
I'm sure Venezuela is all kinds of awesome.
featuring actor-activist Leonardo DiCaprio
Is that the same Leonardo DiCaprio being investigated in Malaysia? The one being investigated for money laundering for the movie Wolf of Wall St.? The one that wants you to vote for Hillary the lying criminal? Oh yes, let me rush to watch it.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
"venezuela", not "venezula"...
"Was", not "was"...
Can't get through one of these documentaries without someone pushing for a cradle to grave carbon tax. Taxation just for being alive, breathing air, and taking up space on our planet. I'm all for responsible environmentalism and living in harmony using sustainable resources but taxing people just for being born... no that's a scheme of the ultra rich to have a free steady source of income. It's like welfare for the elite and this is their method to sell it to the world.
"vuvuzela", not "venezula"...
Kjvdderowyx wyrrynstst crywyrrur vestoddebmennen.
changes. If I wanted always summer I'd go to the Venezula, or if I wanted always winter I'd go to Canada. I like - I WANT - the climate to change! If God had wanted it any other way it would not happen!
You want the weather to change.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
have come together to produce another episode of "the sky is falling" drivel.
I might have watched it did it not feature actor-activist Leonardo DiCaprio.
It depends on how (dis)honest you use the term "the science is settled". There is an overwhelming, if not almost universal, agreement that climate change is real. That has not been disputing in any proper and significant way for a long time. What the relevant parts of the scientific community are still haggling about is:
(1) How bad is it going to be if the current trend continues?
(2) Can the effects be reasonably limited or reversed?
(3) What is the least/cheapest amount of work to keep humanity alive?
A lot of those predictions have a high degree of uncertainty, simply because the underlying physical processes are extremely complex. Many factors are not fully understood, i.e. the impact of global warming on permafrost and the associated feedback cycle, the impact on flora and fauna etc.
In short, the point is not whether the science is settled on every aspect. The problem is real, it is undisputed and aggressive actions are needed now, if not better yesterday. It is far easier to determine when enough has been done compared to predicting that in advance. The car analogy is running full speed into a traffic jam. When do you start to brace -- at the latest point feasible or by reducing your speed to a decent level first?
You will probably get envelopes with strange white powder in them for posting this to the happy go lucky, science denying Slashdot crowd.
I didn't believe in climate change before, but now that I see it on Youtube with Leonardo it makes it a) really real and b) happening as we speak.
Ich bin ein Bjork!
Of course there will never be a punishment when decades from now absolutely fucking nothing the AGW religious freaks predict will happen does not happen.
We still have polar bears.
NYC is not under water.
Bangladesh is not under water.
Tuvalu is not under water.
Hurricane activity has decreased not increased.
Plants still grow. People are not starving en masse around the world.
The Arctic is covered by ice.
There is no northwest passage.
The Antarctic is covered in ice.
Greenland is covered in ice.
We still have as many glaciers as ever. They didn't melt.
But, we still have actor activists like Leo and Michael Mann running around making money telling us the sky is falling. Mean while these same people fly around the world on private jets to climate change boondoggle conferences.
Oh yeah, I'm obviously a clime change denier and a nazi and a racist and several other ists because I have been listening to their nonsense for decades now and not a single prediction has come true, so I must be stupid, uneduca6 and anti-science.
Oh! The irony!
> I keep seeing zealots on this side calling for everything incredibly invasive (in terms of liberties) public policy, to criminal prosecution of "climate change deniers."
Relevant examples, please?
> what happens if you are wrong?
You propose "don't do nuffink, cause we might be wrong"? You serious?
They don't understand the youtube generation. I'll take a ten minute summary version, but if they can cut it down to 90 seconds that would be even better.
Oooh look, a cat video. I think I'll watch that.
Just dropping three points here:
* Sea levels *are* rising, and its negatively impacting the lives of people already, today: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/...
* greenland ice is melting http://www.independent.co.uk/e...
* glaciers are melting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
All three of these things are hopefully undisputable.
Yes, science isn't sure about everything, but it is quite sure about this, sure enough that it should be trusted. And please do base your political decision on what the scientific consensus provides, everything else would be totally irresponsible.
My car has "climate" controls; not "weather" controls.
Based on the idiocy of your post, I think it's safe to assume that you're a retard who wouldn't understand the content of the film anyway. Go back to eating wall candy and let the adults talk.
So was it the Koch Brothers or BP that paid you to do that?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
My car has "climate" controls; not "weather" controls.
A car has neither and the designers chose a metaphor. It's irrelevant
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Well said. I'd just like to add:
Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are more prevalent in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved, and more prevalent in the United States than globally.
source
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
...in 3, 2, 1...
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Waah waah fookin XML
Pro tip: It is not the scientists or the politicians who listen to them over their donors who are ideologically wrecking the lives of millions of people.
Ich bin ein Bjork!
I think that's Welsh bro.
You are greatly underestimating the power of idiots to dispute reality.
To me! Send it by next Tuesday and you'll be saved!
I keep seeing zealots on this side calling for everything incredibly invasive (in terms of liberties) public policy, to criminal prosecution of "climate change deniers."
Oh, please. Show me one person who has called for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers.
And what "liberties" infringed, for example, by a carbon tax, or a cap-and-trade energy market? If your conception of liberty includes unrestricted license to foul other people's air, then I would suggest that the word "liberty" doesn't mean what you think it means.
I'm pretty sure the first one is Icelandic, and the second one is Welsh (big maybe, or old Scottish).
I don't speak either, but that's just what I make of the appearance of the language. I'm someone will chime in with the answer.
All three of these things are hopefully undisputable.
You underestimate the power of denial. These are people living entirely in a fact-free zone.
The problem conservatives have is that they've let the liberals own the issue. So of course liberals will come up with some giant government solution. Rather than come up with some small government solutions, conservatives chose science denial. Once the science got to be more certain, they doubled down. It's beyond debate that it is a thing that is happening and we're the root cause, but they've tripled down. There's no way for them to back down now without losing face and pissing off donors.
Watch this, then ask yourself what you think the best course forward is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
But then again, we live in a day and age where scientific proof is tossed against opinions.
Many people do not trust any science with a political agenda, and when they see all of the usual suspects lining up behind it, they rightly assume it is a scam like the rest of the things these people do.
If climate science is true -- a big if -- and if it fails, it will be because of (1) who promoted it (2) how they promoted it and (3) how they did similar things in the past that ended up being corrupt, and therefore instructed their audience to avoid such things in the future.
And what is this celebrity worship? These people are good at acting, not verifying truth. They are not our leaders or moral guardians, but rather, the opposite.
I think you need to go farther. Until people are willing to face jail time and restitution in the case that they are wrong, they are running your future on your dime.
Alternative Right.
God said that he would not destroy the Earth with a flood again, and indeed He won't.
This is my favourite cartoon concerning this subject: http://scienceblogs.com/starts... concerning a game-theoretic (if one wants to be pompous, and one does) aspect of this. That is, a low carbon, breathable air, greener world is a better world anyway, so we are right to start down this road, with or without AGW.
On y va, qui mal y pense!
And that is the problem. Scientists are people. People have motivations outside of the work itself, such as getting a promotion or being socially accepted. Groups of people are more often wrong than not, and they usually have a consensus about it. In fact, history is full of these upsets.
In a world where a scandal like this exists:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09...
How do you expect people to ever trust "the group"? Answer: they will not. And if bad consequences arise from that, well, the problem was that those who warned of those consequences were not trustworthy.
Alternative Right.
To me! Send it by next Tuesday and you'll be saved!
But do you offer "Salvation Guaranteed or triple my money back" ? Otherwise, sticking with the SubGenii. . .
I'm not alarmed because where I'm living we get to grow wine in the near future. Now the population of the country will increase 20 fold due to climate refugees, but the wine is enough for everybody.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Alternative Right.
"Settled."
As in, "Well, that's settled then."
Actual meaning: all of us believe it, and per our usual begging-the-question fallacy/passive-aggressive attack, we are going to insist you believe it too and call you a bad person if you refuse.
It's a pathology. Leftism, I mean.
Alternative Right.
There are literally 303 references to back up the information in the article linked by GP. I'd say there's a lot more credibility there than there is in your random internet comment.
If you place your personal beliefs above observable reality, what is that? Magical thinking? Insanity?
Promotion gets a bad name, but it is what one is doing when releasing one-sided or selectively chosen data.
I used to respect National Geographic, but after seeing one-sided political propaganda coming from them over the past few years, I throw them in the junkheap with most of the rest of media.
All you had was your good name, media. And now, that is gone.
Alternative Right.
Take your pick: hasbara, CTR and fuzzy bears.
Alternative Right.
Ich bin ein Bjork!
I think that's Welsh bro.
Neither is Welsh. The second one is probably some type of old Gaelic, but it's not Welsh.
What surprises me here is that the National Geographic Channel is majority-owned by Murdoch's News Corp and has been for over 5 years. This makes reports more credible that the National Geographic Society "still maintains complete editorial control".
As to whether it is happening or not: I have lived in the same area since 1982 and there have been major changes in the temperatures here in that time, in particular in the last 5-10 years. It is generally warmer and a higher incidence of heavy rain showers in summer, with or without thunder and lightning. Wildlife is changing as well, I really hope malaria does not make it up here.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
No, it's called AGW alarmism. Climate changes. It has changed. It will change in the future. How much of it is MAN MADE is the speculative non-scientific bullshit that we, as skeptics and protectors of the scientific method, are trying to stamp out.
No scientist with any SHRED of credibility will take the Al Gore/DiCaprio finger-wagging approach to climate change. We have politicized this phenomenon and its related effects to the point that ANY evidence to the contrary of the AGW cult is considered heresy and should be met with Puritanical stake-burning by those who "know the science is settled."
Observable reality is that climate changes. Observable historical records is that it has been hotter and colder than it is now, even in the blip of man's existence on this earth. So pardon me if I don't fucking cow-tow to the AGW cultists who consider us all "destroyers of the planet." This planet's survived worse. And since we're not killing it, it'll survive at least until the Sun explodes.
Your well researched and presented argument has really helped the debate. Thank you!
The overwhelming agreement, even to the 95% confidence level, was that temperatures would rise more than they did. The overwhelming agreement was to delete original but inconvenient data, and only provide and use massaged data for analyses. The overwhelming agreement was to use temperature monitoring stations sited on concrete and asphalt pads, next to heat exchangers, near runways, and so forth, as proxies for temperatures in nearby wilderness and other less-developed areas. In short, the point is whether climate science deserves to be called science at all.
Contrary to popular fallacies, the Koch Brothers donate more to scientific research than to "evil devil oil companies"....
"Must be demonstrated in the past" -- without that, Rightists will "not believe" which actually means "not accept the ravings of other human beings as reality."
If we have regressed, it has been under the last 200+ years of manic Leftism. It seems Leftism has led us to regression then. Maybe we should go with a fact-based narrative and then reject Leftism?
Alternative Right.
My car has "climate" controls; not "weather" controls.
Your car has "Automatic HVAC" which your vendor has chosen to market to you under the name "climate control" — I am in the same situation, but I do not mistake this for having some relevance when discussing climate change.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So if you are going to intertwine science and politics like that, in ways that will invariably lead to the needless suffering of many millions of people if you are wrong, what happens if you are wrong?
Indeed. You've got two areas here. People claim the problem is so huge that all means become justified. So there's a tendency towards eco-fascism. But to be clear, a tendency as most environmentalists are genuinely nice people. However, one has to be careful how these things get hijacked, just like, I'm sure it is fine for a good government to spy on people in order to catch terrorists with dirty bombs, as the threat is just too big, but those spying powers can be hijacked. So that's the political side of it. Back in 1970 you already had Ecologist magazine talking about the population bomb, and back then you also had films like Zero Population Growth (ZPG) doing a narrative on the totalitarian dystopia, which the population bomb view, could imply. And besides, in climate change, there's been a tendency to polarise the issues, often as "big oil" versus the "little eco-friendly guy". But how much do wind farms cost to build? Billions. And who benefits from building them? All sorts of people, including big gas. Because you need gas to backup the wind. So is it really big oil v. little guy? No. There's lots of vested interests all round. And that's fine, because big infrastructure means big money. So there is a lot at stake.
The other area then is the science itself. Here they invented the term "denialist" simply to mask the basic truth that the science cannot know the future climate of the planet. It is unknowable. Science has some wonderful methods. And often they can't be used because the thing you are studying doesn't allow them to be used. For example, if I was studying nutrition, I would lock people in a cage and feed different groups different things all their lives, and see the outcomes. Oh wait, that's against human rights. Can't use that method. So the kinds of rigorous methods you can use to smash atoms and crush concrete, you can't use to study humans. So we use other softer methods which require more inference and guess-work with poor quality data. Likewise, we can't study the climate in a "let's bombard a few Earths with different gasses and rays" way. So we use a lot of modelling. Climate science is one of the biggest for use of computer simulations, I gather. But because this natural vagueness runs counter to the "it is settled" claim, they have to call people "denialists". That's like someone calling me a "dog-hater" when I complain to the owner that their dog ran straight across a park and chased me and bit me. It masks the fact that they were not in control of their dog. So I'm the "dog hater".
The real issue here is trust. We naturally trust the organisations which are supposed to be the sources of knowledge, and socially, if you're a scientist, you have to trust your profession and trust your colleagues and a lot of this goes by reputation and power-structures. They are funding you, deciding if you get funding, and y'all have to work together. And the point is to uphold standards. But there are issues around the basic vagueness of some kinds of data and the way certain views become established and accepted simply in an evolutionary way, that ideas compete and by accident some become more prominent, and sure, science's validity is that it is self correcting, however, the big point here is that self correction takes time.
There are cases where we know that self-correction took 50 or 60 years. It is related to human lifespan. So that is the risk. Yeah, we have to act, given the current knowledge, and, you can't magic away the risk that in 50 years the knowledge will be quite different. So sure, you "can't wait", but just be honest and admit that in 50 years, the view can be wrong. So don't stand in the way of self-correction. Stop calling people "denialists".
Calling anyone who voices criticism a "denialist" is a sure way to interfere with science's ability to self correct. Once you go down that route, it stops being science.
Now, does anyone have a link to those charts which show the models continue to run much hotter than the real climate?
Even when an existential threat stares them in the face, they deny it if it is just a few years away and not too immediate. (Just look at all the deniers posting here.) The human race is incapable of dealing with an existential threat that is a few decades away.
That said, maybe Trump will nuke the planet, thereby reducing the problem as nobody will be around to suffer the consequences...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You lie.
This language is designed to be vague so that anyone who "denies" climate change can be prosecuted. This is not private lawsuits; these are prosecutor-initiated government lawsuits. That is a criminal prosecution, since we are talking about corporations and not individuals.
Also of note:
http://www.overlawyered.com/20...
Alternative Right.
Only fools are cowed by a large number of sources when it is clear those have been selected for their agreement with a thesis.
Alternative Right.
...anything you touch will turn to lead.
Ten million criminals, liars, grifters, con men, frauds, and shysters agree on something.
Maybe they like the science, or maybe they are doing what they usually do, which is extract money from the sheep.
Either way, they destroyed their own credibility and that is why people do not trust them.
Alternative Right.
Did you happen to look at any news? Not just YouTube, Yahoo, or faux network, which are classier as gossip? There have been scare pieces every day, and their only solution is to blame mankind for co2. But, you see, no one is saying, green is good. Blue planet, is not usual, a blue white planet is usual. Green, is not usual either. Brown is the other usual color. Why? It's not to do with people, but some other factor. About people, glad the planet is green, and society is advancing, otherwise the lenardos would have to take a walk, and because their planes would not fly.
So, are you ready to say the science is settled, we trust it, let's act on it and if scientists firmly disprove it we're ready to face whatever consequences the political system demands of us?
The financial industry never paid for the stuff it made over the last couple of decades, while destroying big parts of the economy. Let's use their example to deal with the consequences of this.
Your position, on the other hand, is easy to defend. Let's do nothing and when the planet turns to shit, we all die, so there's no one to be blamed.
If the science is right and we do something to prevent a catastrophic end, we win. Of course, if nothing happens, there will be people saying we did it all for nothing. So in this scenario Bill O'Reilly will always get to complain... and so will you.
If the science is right and we do nothing, the planet turns into a very unwelcoming place. Some people survive, for a while, for sure. Maybe not in the US and Europe, though. Aboriginal people seem to be doing fairly OK in a desert, so if it keeps being a desert they should have no problems. In the long term, depending exactly on how the system goes, if the planet turns to a Venus-like thing... maybe not much will survive.
If the science is wrong and we do nothing, we just keep going where we're going. Eventually we'll run out of coal, oil, combustible gases, but not before having destroyed most of the surface of the planet.
If the science is wrong and we do that activists want, we'll have a society less dependent on oil. Which is a cause of conflicts (or do you think you guys went to Iraq because of non-existent weapons of mass destruction?). Which is a cause of pollution, both at the extraction, in transport and while being burned. Less dependent on coal, which causes a lot of pollution at any point of the process, implies destruction of forests and mountains to extract (if using open top mining). Yes, we may need to adapt our way of living. But I've got news for you. If each of the 7 billion people of the planet uses water like Americans do, buys clothes, cell phones, cars, TVs, food, the way Americans do, this planet won't do anyway... there are not enough resources for all that cheap crap.
Sure, the American dream entitles you, us all, to everything. Even to the millions of dollars you'll never make, but get to dream about. And all of it is without consequences.
This thread will have lots, and lots, and lots, of flaming going on soon. The slashdot editor who let this through with that summary would have been wiser to post an article discrediting emacs as a useful and relevant editor.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
When people show their hand so clearly
Nah, way too many vowels.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
My car has "climate" controls; not "weather" controls.
Your car has "Automatic HVAC" which your vendor has chosen to market to you under the name "climate control" — I am in the same situation, but I do not mistake this for having some relevance when discussing climate change.
No, no, the button in my car says it controls the climate: when I set it, the whole planet changes temperature to suit my comfort level. I saw it on TV./
Yes, there are lot of of morons expressing their beliefs on IMDB for some reason.
This was especially funny:
"In reality 66% of scientists have no opinion about AGW"
...In reality 95% of scientists have no opinion about gravity. So?
The New Yorker.
Independent.
Wikipedia.
All three of these things are hopefully undisputable.
>anthropological global warming
They studied so hard it raised the temperature of the earth?
Please, if you don't have a basic grasp of language why the fuck should I think your opinion on science is not worthless?
Back under the bridge for you!
Don't worry. No lives are "ideologically wrecked" except in your imagination. Also, you should only ever act upon the best scientific knowledge you have at hand at a given time, acting on mindless speculation gets you nowhere. There is currently an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is man-made and needs to be combated somehow. Of course, the majority of scientists can be wrong, but that possibility cannot and should not give any grounds for action.
Moreover, if you're a US citizen it helps to look at debates of the same issue elsewhere. There has been a tendency in the US lately to ideologize and politicize issues that are not political at all. By checking how the same issue is debated elsewhere you can quickly find out the problematic areas. For example discussions of "socialism (aka social democracy)", "sodomy", "climate change", "abortion", ...
What about mathematics then? Not a science?
Well it does when a pebble strikes your condensor and leaks POISONOUS REFRIGERANT into the atmosphere.
You realize you can purge any R134A AC system and fill it with propane who no loss in performance or seal integrity??
So you are noticing that 0.25 degree increase. Brutal, isn't it?
Yep.
Watch this movie!!!
In it little Leo flies all over the world in his private jet so he can cluck-cluck at all us little plebs that won't just live in caves to save the world!!!
>So if you are going to intertwine science and politics like that, in ways that will invariably lead to the needless suffering of many millions of people if you are wrong, what happens if you are wrong?
Each time a politician switches on the light, starts up his car or anybody uses any man made tools (They are all regulated, safety, ...), there is an intertwining of the sciences and the politics.
>what happens if you are wrong?
Everyday I take decisions. Everyday I can be wrong. I do settle things which impacts millions of people. This is why I base my judgment on what is best to make choices: science.
Being afraid is not wrong, not making what is needed because your afraid is definitively wrong.
Step 1: Post item irrelevant to your site with known flamewar issue to your audience.
Step 2: Profit!
Step 3: Site erodes further into uselessness.
My biggest argument thus far is that so far I've seen absolutely NOTHING on the policy side which has a reasonable chance at doing anything other than marginally at the edges. The solution to this problem is not going to come from attempting to modify human behavior by carrot and stick. Sure, it can help but it's not going to solve the problem. The solution is going to come from some technical advancement that is cost effective for people to use vs what they already do now.
I wonder if there was a Slashdot back then when Noah was building the ark...
That is so true, and it occurs on all political sides. Regarding climate change, the "right wing" people currently ignore reality. But I also get see the other side. I'm working in the humanities at a university and you wouldn't believe the kind of shit I have to listen to by (usually) left-wing liberal morons about social constructivism and that there is no objective reality, blablabla. These "theories" are completely beyond good and evil or true and false, and are practically always based on a huge slippery slope argument in combination with a blatant misunderstanding of what makes a good theory. Sometimes the people who defend them are even relatively smart, it's just that the good old audio engineering principle also holds for the choice of literature/information sources: Garbage in, garbage out.
It makes me so sad. :(
But he pays people to starve to "offset" his carbon footprint.
And wake me when there are penalties (fines/taxes/etc.) for having "too many" offspring, that is, when we address the ever-increasing hole in our resources bucket. Until then, doing anything else is only delaying the inevitable by a relatively small amount.
We see here yet another perfect example of big greedy rich companies influencing public opinion yet again by lying to them and spreading disinformation among them pretending to be normal users in order to keep on being greedy rich fucking companies and fucking us all over.
Man-made climate change is real, it's true, and there is no person on this planet with any real intelligence that doesn't have a fucking agenda that will deny it. But for richfucks, they'd throw their momma off a fucking building if it meant increasing their richfuck profits by even 1%, and they certainly don't give a shit about the future of this planet as long as they get rich now. And worse, they'll blame "liberals" or some other bullshit and argue that there is some fucking agenda from the other direction when that doesn't even make any fucking sense. This isn't about "liberal" or "conservative" or anything, it's about the goddamn future of humanity and the fact that most of us give a shit about the survival of our species, unlike you richfucks that don't care about anything but getting as rich as possible before you kick the bucket and leave the world in a pile of shit, because who the fuck cares, you got rich and enjoyed your fucking life. You fucking scum.
We should move to take away the "opinions" of these fucking idiots and just enact laws that favor truth and common sense without all the back and forth bickering with bullshit artists.
Wait! Everybody told me you don't exist! You were just supposed to be some conspiracy by the media!
It's awful how willfully ignorant some people on /. are.
The problem is real, it is undisputed and aggressive actions are needed now, if not better yesterday.
How can you argue to act now when we do not have answers to these questions:
Because the partial answers we already have are clear enough. Again, we are already seeing enough of the impact that it is evidently going to be back. It doesn't matter if the bad means "half of the world will no longer be able to grow food" or `just' "a sea level will eat a good chunk of all ocean nations.
You do not even know whether trying to prevent climate change is cheaper then just live with it. And realize that any country which drastically limits the use of the cheapest energy (the one which emits most CO) will disadvantage itself compared to the countries which do not care. It will have less money on military a because of that it may find itself to be liberated from its climate saving government. The government will impose drastic policies on it's voters only when voters support it. Otherwise it is just too risky. And good luck, telling people their energy will be 2-3 times more expensive (and housing more expensive because of stronger insulation requirements) when many of the voters have hard time to pay their bills.
Yes, we do know that living with it is significantly more costly. Look at the raising costs for tropical storms and other freak events alone. It is also wrong that burning fossil fuel is cheaper. If you compare a modern black coal plant with state-of-the-art pollution filtering, it is not cheaper wind energy in large parts of the world. There is a reason why wind turbine are growing a lot even in the USA. Arguing that energy prices will grow by a factor of 2 or 3 is just dishonest.
There is a lot of black and white painting in the discussion about climate change. Noone (wanting to be taken serious) says we should drop all fossil fuels today. That's simply not feasible because there are no alternatives. What should be done is starting to deploy the technology we already have on a wide scale. The USA are a prime example of where large scale deployment of renewable energy would be easy. It is a single national body and has low population density in most parts. It would be easy to have wind turbines enough to consistently produce all the necessary energy and a grid that can actually distribute it. It wouldn't even be that costly to deploy something like that. The problem here in Germany is that a lot of people especially in the south follow the classic NIMBY pattern. Building 100kV+ power lines underground is just ridiculous. *That* is a problem when dealing with voters.
The "hockey stick" is partly the deception windowing down your data to the region in which you want to claim an effect, disregarding other regions with similar magnitudes of change outside of that window. When the hockey stick is placed in the larger context of historical climate change it no longer looks like a hockey stick.
Hockey stick is also inept statistics. Steve McIntyre demonstrated long ago that the statistical methodology in that hockey stick paper generates a hockey stick if fed synthetic climate data having no underlying trend. Mann's methodology has an in-built bias toward producing hockey sticks.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
When I serviced my AC, I did the same and filled it with propane. No problem at all -- this was four years ago.
Tesla and Solar City
Greed is the root of all evil.
or if I wanted always winter I'd go to Canada.
If you want always winter, we don't want you up here. We hate winter. It's why we're so nice - we use up all our hatred on the weather.
Is it about this movie? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt04... Couldn't find the review...
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Found it http://www.imdb.com/title/tt59...
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
>(1) How bad is it going to be if the current trend continues?
It will bad during your life time. If it will be very very bad during your lifetime or for the next generations is not decided.
>(2) Can the effects be reasonably limited or reversed?
Yes, they can. Even with an improvement on the world average quality of life.
>(3) What is the least/cheapest amount of work to keep humanity alive?
To exterminate >90% of the world population. But I'm not a big fan of this solution.
It's on page 2 of the reviews. Link > .http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5929776/reviews?start=10
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
... and even if you know there will be a (high velocity) impact, will you still break to reduce damage to whatever is possible or will you start to run idle or continue as you where and hope for the best or do you accelerate because fuck-it.
The majority of people will try to do the first. The people who do the second or first would be considered not fit for out society and will be locked up because they are either murderers (if other people are involved) or mentally unstable or both.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Why don't you loan your magic car to the government so it can be used to geoengineer the planet to a useful and stable climate?
This space intentionally left blank
>You do not even know whether trying to prevent climate change is cheaper than just suffer or die with it.
walked the dinosaur....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83nFiPoSuzU
I've waited 30 years for this to happen.
But civilisation as we know it won't survive. We kind of need that. That's the point. The planet will be fine, we will be screwed.
Yes, and those are entirely reasonable things to do when people come up with "new statistical methods" and demand immediate action. Just look at the mess Li's Gaussian Copulas caused in the financial and mortgage markets. New statistical techniques require many years and many different test cases to validate.
Now, what is this activist crap doing on Slashdot?
>So if you are going to intertwine science and politics like that, in ways that will invariably lead to the needless suffering of many millions of people if you are wrong, what happens if you are wrong?
I keep seeing zealots on the other side shielding coal mines from responsibility for the millions of people they kill every year (it's totally coincidental that the highest rates of respiratory illness in the world always happen in towns with coal mines - and the highest worker death-toll of any energy source in the world is pure happenstance). I keep seeing them complain about Native Americans in North Dakota who don't want a pipeline built over their land.
You want to know what will happen if we're wrong ? Nothing of value will have been lost- there is literally not a single change being advocated that would harm your liberty in any way, all we're proposing is to replace archaic 19th century technology with the best 21st century technologies available. And what if we are wrong and did nothing ? You act like that's a non-effect situation. But we could end the suffering of billions of people around the world with the SAME actions that we need to fight climate change - and you would rather have their suffering persist.
You think you're the one defending liberty ? The Jackbooted Thugs are not shooting at the people wanting to build the pipelines, they are shooting at the people whose land is being ruined to build the pipeline against their wishes. The government overreach isn't acting against fossil fuels -it's defending them. If liberty/politics is a factor then it is, at the very least, a zero-effect change considering the actions of governments FOR fossil fuels are ALREADY as bad as they come, it will only be more of the same in this regard.
But everything else ? Clean air to breath, clean water to drink - those things are hugely beneficial for everybody, even if we were wrong about climate change then so fucking what ? Would you turn down a guaranteed million dollars with a chance at a billion dollars because you may not get the billion ?
Why turn down clean air, clean water, safer vehicles, safer cities, reduced exploitation - because you fear something that is no better under the systems you defend ?
If anything - renewable energy which naturally favours lots and lots of small businesses competing in an open market is a much better deal for consumers than fossil fuels which tend to require massive infrastructure investments that turn them into natural monopolies where no real competition has ever existed.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Thanks for such wonderful example of motivated reasoning, cherry-picking, and creative interpretation. I don't know what filters you are consuming your climatology media from, but my guess is it isn't from reputable scientific journals.
It wasn't 97% of scientists, it was 97% of climate scientists. Which means that there is no disagreement between your 66% of scientists figure. As a scientist, I've been trained to be modest when expressing opinions outside of my area of expertise. So I don't have a personal opinion about AGW...other than trusting the experts, although I do often read the papers that make it to Nature or Science.
When one looks at the published climatology papers, that 97% paper is quite low. It is more like 100%. See The Scientific Consenses on Climate Change, Oreskes in Science, December, 2004.
Then present some new evidence.
Oh there is NO evidence against the theory ? Then until that changes - the science is settled, and that's the meaning of the word in this context.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
By now, 99% of the people either think climate change and human's impact on it is clear or they - somewhat religiously - don't believe it and no documentary will change that...
The first one is the national anthem of Greenland. The language is Kalaallisut, a.k.a Greenlandic.
I can't figure out the second one, though.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The second one is German, with the name of an icelandic singer at the end (with the ümlaut missing, but that's just slashdot.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I've been mitigating the effects of climate change by slowly turning the climate control knob in my Focus slightly colder whenever I hear the climate has warmed.
Your Welcome
...In reality 95% of scientists have no opinion about gravity. So?
So, obviously gravity doesn't exist.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Fiction
>The overwhelming agreement, even to the 95% confidence level, was that temperatures would rise more than they did
False the temperatures are on track with the best models and have shown no significant deviations - ever. Yes I know fox news said otherwise and you read some blog with a graph that said otherwise. They were lying to you - the deniers cherry-pick data to present false images, or when they are really eager, they flat out lie about what the data means.
Much like claiming the medieval warm period was sooo hot and everybody was fine, while carefully not mentioning that it affected such a tiny area that the global average didn't even change. A global average change is a big deal.
>The overwhelming agreement was to delete original but inconvenient data
False, and the people who told you that this is what happened were lying. Three tribunals in a row have investigated the allegations and all three found no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing. But I suppose it's like Benghazi, no matter how many times it is investigated and found that the person being targetted did nothing wrong - there will always be another witchhunt and people will still believe there is guilt. Funny though how nobody wants to prosecute Colin Powel - after all 11 embassies were hit during his tenure and 6 diplomats killed, why is the ONE time one got killed under Hillary so much worse than his 11 ? And so it goes with this claim - it is devoid of any truth, but believed because it supports your personal ideology.
>The overwhelming agreement was to use temperature monitoring stations sited on concrete and asphalt pads, next to heat exchangers, near runways, and so forth, as proxies for temperatures in nearby wilderness and other less-developed areas
Funny though - how when a group of denier scientists set out disprove climate change theory by building a data set with all those shady stations excluded - that set promptly became the GOTO set for the climate scientists and actually proved things were WORSE than previously thought. The so-called BEST set - created to try and disprove the theory, ended up being the strongest data FOR the theory.
When people actively try to disprove a theory, and only end up making it stronger - that's a very good sign in science.
>In short, the point is whether climate science deserves to be called science at all.
In short the point is whether climate denial is deliberate deception or the suckers who fell for the deliberate deception.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
You do know that Al Gore and DiCaprio aren't scientists, right?
Religion - which is, in fact, a major motivator for climate denial.
Like a certain republican congressman who told the world climate science cannot be true because God promised Noah he wouldn't destroy the world again.*
*Which is ironic because you'd think a Bible-thumper would AT LEAST have read the bits they quote - according to Genesis the skydaddy actually did NOT promise that, in fact he promised he WOULD destroy earth again - with fire. If you're going to base your belief system on stone age myths, at LEAST get the myths right.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
(1) How bad is it going to be if the current trend continues?
(2) Can the effects be reasonably limited or reversed?
(3) What is the least/cheapest amount of work to keep humanity alive?
You do not even know whether trying to prevent climate change is cheaper then just live with it.
I would say that question is covered by the answering the first three. Before you can address the question of whether it's "cheaper to just live with it", first you need to know "how bad is it going to be if the current trend continues."
And realize that any country which drastically limits the use of the cheapest energy (the one which emits most CO) will disadvantage itself compared to the countries which do not care.
That's an assertion. It is not at all clear if it's true. Burning coal is 18th century technology. Moving on to more efficient 21st century technologies may well be an advantage, not a disadvantage, and being early in adopting technologies that the rest of the world will move to could have significant advantages.
Reducing carbon usage required more technology, not less. In general, developing and improving technologies-- for almost anything-- seems, in the past, to be something that has had benefits.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
citation needed.
None of these claims are true.
Climate changes. It has changed. It will change in the future.
This, at least, is true.
How much of it is MAN MADE is the speculative non-scientific bullshit that we, as skeptics and protectors of the scientific method, are trying to stamp out.
You see yourself as a "protector of the scientific method"..... okaaaay.
No scientist with any SHRED of credibility will take ... AGW seriously
(paraphrased from foam-flecked rant)
Over 95% of climate scientists (those who are qualified to hold an expert opinion, and most suitable/able to interpret the evidence) agree that the accelerated climate change we are currently experiencing is anthropogenic. I guess you could redefine "credible" to be "anyone who agrees with me", but you would be in a tiny minority.
Observable reality is that climate changes.
Well, no, observable reality is that the weather changes. We have to use historical evidence to judge climate change....
Observable historical records is that it has been hotter and colder than it is now, even in the blip of man's existence on this earth.
This is incorrect by your use of "in the blip of man's existence". Even your "credible" scientists agree it is the hottest humans or human-like ancestors have ever experienced, by some way; this is going back tens of thousands of years. You don't even have to "believe" in AGW, the question isn't whether we are "killing the planet", the question is how does our current techologically advanced civilization survive the changes that have and are taking place since the industrial revolution? I for one do not want to see the human race reduced to living out of caves again, or vanish entirely.
So pardon me if I don't fucking cow-tow to the AGW cultists who consider us all "destroyers of the planet."
No, you won't be pardoned. You're one of the idiots who make the human race is no better than the lowiest bacteria when it comes to making forward-thinking decisions about survivability in our environment. We will grow and grow until we consume all resources and poison our surroundings, and then die down again as a result. Even with foreknowledge of this, we refuse to change course, it's tragic; you can expect no sympathy at all.
This planet's survived worse. And since we're not killing it, it'll survive at least until the Sun explodes.
Again, true. We're only killing ourselves and a large percentage of the remaining species on the planet. We'll be survived by *something*, just not us.
Why is he letting National Geographic spread these unpatriotic facts?!!!
He should be more like Florida Governor Rick Scott, who banned state employees from using the term "global warming".
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
None of the things you list as things that were predicted but have not happened were predicted to have happened by 2016.
Some of them weren't predicted at all, and some were predicted as things that would happen by 2050, and quite a few were predictions for "by the end of the century."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
AND - Stop using the phrase "Climate Change" as if it is not a Natural Occurrence.
We are mid IntraGlacial period. Of course the climate changes.
What you mean is Anthropogenic Climate Change if you are being honest, or Man Made Climate Change , if the prior to too difficult to understand.
The root of most argument, I Believe, is there, in that people keep saying we have to stop Climate Change, and almost everyone knows intuitively trying to change a control mother nature successfully globally is a wast of time and energy.
Be Specific and your argument will carry much more weight and be credible.
For example, to rephrase for you, - Man Made Climate Change is leading to negative effects. We need to control our impact on the natural cycle.
Climate change alarmists are like the crazy people on the street corner holding the sign saying the world will end on a specific date. The reality is that climate change will not kill anyone in our lifetime. "Stop chasing ambulances and start chasing dreams."
Another one of those folks who fails to realise that refusal to believe anything leaves him with anything other than nothing. Quit reading InfoWars and use your brain.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Yes, and those are entirely reasonable things to do when people come up with "new statistical methods" and demand immediate action.
I'm sorry, but no.
Death threats are never an appropriate response.
If your side thinks that they need to issue death threats to rebut a scientific argument, this is basically evidence that they are not arguing with the science.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The problem we have in our modern world is that people believe what they want to believe. For the first time in history, nearly every person has the whole of human knowledge at their fingertips - you can find the answer to any question with 30 seconds of googling/wikipedia-ing.
This video tells "believers" what they already know - and will be completely ignored by those who don't.
"An Inconvenient Truth" set the stage - it may have swayed a few minds - but essentially, everyone who already knew and understood had their deepest fears confirmed - and the people who didn't want to believe simply dismissed it out of hand...possibly never even watched it.
This is everywhere these days. Donald Trump can say any lies he wants - people who support him will believe absolutely anything he says, no matter the evidence to the contrary. The people who were convinced to vote for "Brexit" in the UK were similarly immune to fact when the facts didn't fit their world view.
So what we need as a civilization is NOT more videos like this. What we need is to somehow awaken people's minds to the idea of seeking TRUTH. To think for themselves. To look up the fact - and if they doubt the fact, to follow the little blue numbers on the Wikipedia pages. To think for themselves. To believe what is actually true, and not what they want to be true.
For me - global climate change is very real. What's wrong is that we're trying to fix it by switching to LED lamps, recycling coke cans and driving hybrid SUV's. We need to look for changes that'll work...stop farming cows, for example. We can all, quite easily, give up beef and cow-milk. That alone would have more impact than replacing every incandescent bulb, replacing every car with a Nissan Leaf, and recycling every scrap of recyclable material to perfection. The second thing we need to do is to cut our population to maybe a quarter of what it currently is. This is REALLY hard to do. But that's the thing that'll ultimately do.
So even the promoters of fixing things need to step back from their current recommendations and check the facts. It's actually not that hard to figure out what's required.
www.sjbaker.org
The problem is real, it is undisputed and aggressive actions are needed now, if not better yesterday.
"Well, we don't know what we need to do, but we need to do lots of it! Now hand over your money and your liberties."
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
OK, and how many of "humanity" do we need to keep alive?
We have maybe a billion people a century ago and 7 billion now. Is it any wonder that feeding and housing 6 billion additional people causes changes?
Let's face it, "humanity" on the Earth is a very temporary condition. There are all sorts of long and short cycles and within the span of future recorded history, Manhattan will again be covered in ice as it has many times before.
Ultimately the Sun will claim the Earth no matter what the angst of the moment is related through the media.
Enjoy life now. It ends. It ALWAYS does.
How many billions of people should shiver in the dark this winter to prevent a few thousand tropical islanders from having to worry about the water? What's the scientific consensus on that?
Let's just say the one side is completely correct. So what? Do you think everyone will say "I want to help -- please let me shiver in the dark every winter and bake in the heat every summer until I die"?
You want to take "agressive action" to "fight climate change". Ok. What if people refuse to be subjected to your aggression and decide to defend themselves and their way of life? What's your plan for that?
What is disputable is the reason for the changes. Is it man-made or cyclical? The planet has seen both global warming and cooling over multiple eons. The cycle will be seen again, with or without man.
We are stewards on this planet to protect the resources we're given. However, it's also important to stop panicking as Leo and Al seem to be. The logical steps I see coming from Elon Musk and other innovators will have an impact on conserving resources.
Just because we're not riding in the same bandwagon, doesn't mean we're living in a "fact-free" zone. There is some degree of uncertainty in all of this.
To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.
No, mathematics are an art, not a science.
Big difference. Science looks at reality and tries to make predictions about it. Mathematics doesn't give a damn about reality. It just produces logical conclusions based on axioms which may or may not be in any way related to reality. A true mathematician doesn't care.
In fact, there's a professor in mathematics at a Belgian university (I think it's in Gent) who likes to say things like "every now and then somebody calls me up to tell me they've found a practical application for my work. I always feel that's a bit of a pity."
The "ich bin ein Björk" is a German thinking the Greenland national anthem is Icelandic, it is the one between them which no-one has worked out.
Not wanting to do a statistical analysis of this, but this story seems to have attracted a very high proportion of a/c postings. Most of said postings are slanted the same way, rather like stories which involve Russia attract large numbers of postings from the Leningrad Troll House.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Your smooth transition into 'defend Hillary Science' really fucks over the rest of your comment.
I'd like to emphasis that just about in every 1st world country on the planet the general populace agrees and acknowledges the science that man-made climate change is real and happening. It is only in the US that anti-eco idiots appear in such numbers have such a widespread platform and that they are actually listened to. These crackpots would be laughed out of the room in just about any european country, by any party, left or right.
This all fits snuggly into the type of political debate taking place in the US right now, that has everybody outside the US shake their head in disbelief.
Just wanted to get that out.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Just nitpicking since I agree with your position. But if you quote Wikipedia as a source, you're doing it wrong.
No one (except the really silly) deny climate change. They are skeptical of the MAN MADE portion of that.
If they were in fact skeptical, that would be fine. But there are far too many people who have one-sided skepticism: they are not merely skeptical but completely unwilling to listen to one side-- the actual science--but completely credulous to claims by people with no actual expertise at all saying that they science is wrong.
In fact, there are good reasons to think that human-produced carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gasses emitted into the atmosphere, has an effect on climate. The current measurements of about 1C increase in average global temperature is well in line with what you'd expect from the basic physics. So far, there really isn't a credible alternate model.
...We emit orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanism and nobody questions whether volcanism influences the climate.
Well, yes... but primarily volcanoes affect climate by emitting volcanic aerosols, which reduce sunlight and cause temporary cooling. It's not due to their carbon dioxide emissions, which are (as you point out) very small compared to human emissions. The aerosols are, actually, an excellent natural experiment that allows us to see the effects of a reduction in solar input.
[snip] ... If you want to be taken for anything but a troll, your trolls are going to have to address these points directly, and not just go on a rant about Al Gore. That shit is old.
I will agree with that! Al Gore isn't a climate scientist, he isn't cited by climate scientists, he isn't even talked about by climate scientists. He's a politician who held the vice presidency, a not-very-important office, two decades ago. Really, if somebody's only contribution to talking about climate is to bring up Al Gore, about all I can think is that they don't know anything and don't have anything substantive to say about the subject.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
He should have done the whole movie flying around in a private jet, as he is wont to do.
All I hear from you guys is spouting the same rhetoric you read somewhere, Apply some independent thought for a change.
Let's put out some facts. Earth's weather is a chaos system. Chaos cannot be predicted. BTW, According to Al Gore, we are well past the Point of No Return, so enjoy the ride. CO is not a pollutant. It is the giver of life for every green plant on our home world. 10,000 years ago when the so called Native Americans moved on to the American continent from Asia, there were glaciers all the way down to Chicago. Now they are just big puddles we call the "Great Lakes". So yes, the planet is getting warmer, but it has been in life giving state for hundreds of millions of years and going through many cold and warm cycles. In 1883 Krakatoa, an island 10 miles across vaporized in an afternoon sending the entire planet into a volcanic winter that lasted for 4 years. Guess what, Earth recovered. (wiki volcanic winter to see much more.) We definitely have an effect on our environment, being the dominate species. But these doom and gloom end of the world predictions are just the WWW version of the crazy guy standing on the corner with the sign.
To run your car analogy off the cliff...
Science is predicting a traffic jam on the highway, but it's over the horizon, so we can't see how bad it really is yet. We are in our car accelerating at the moment and we are debating whether to let off the gas or hit the brakes. Except the scientists haven't said anything about the fact that we might have converted to a flying car by the time we get to the jam and would be able to fly right over it. There is also the potential that we could get off on a side road and take a slightly longer route that ultimately saves the trip. We could theoretically also just leave the road and drive through the grass to avoid the jam even though it would be very hard on the car and be very uncomfortable.
The people demanding we slam on the brakes don't see anything other than the traffic jam. Those are the kinds of people that end up causing accidents by over braking way early and catching people by surprise.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Science is never settled. It's always open to re-evaluation upon presentation of new evidence.
You don't seem to understand what "settled" means. "Settled" doesn't mean that new evidence is rejected; it means we've reached the point where the burden of proof is clearly on one side of a question.
If you invent a perpetual motion machine, a physicist isn't obliged to consider your position carefully. He just says, "That violates conservation of energy." and he's done. This is useful, and indeed necessary feature of the way science works; otherwise scientists would spend all their time re-litigating well-established results because some crackpot had a brainstorm.
Nonetheless it is possible to mount a credible attack on settled science. Retroviruses turned the whole "central dogma of molecular biology" on its head. Yes, they actually called it that. And there are serious attempts at overturning conservation of momentum using quantum theory. An attack on a well-established theory has to be narrow in its specific claims and impeccably supported. If it succeeds, then the burden of proof is subsequently altered.
We've reached the point where it's unreasonable to demand scientists spend their disproving your beliefs about what is happening to climate and why. It doesn't mean you can't attack the theory of anthropogenic climate change, you just do it from a point where the burden of proof is on you.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Maybe the best way to get certain folks on board is to present information with a sense of self-skepticism and talk about the uncertainties rather than having movie starts tell us disaster is upon us and not even acknowledge those uncertainties.
Right there you're showing that you're not familar with the actual science. If you would read, for example, the IPCC Working Group 1 report, there is exhaustive discussion of the uncertainties-- the whole report repeatedly addresses how well do we know what we know, what are the sources of uncertainty, how much uncertainty is there, and what do we need to do to reduce our uncertainty.
If you want "talk about uncertainties", look at the actual science, where uncertainties are laid out in detail, not at the popular media (and certainly not at the blogger commentary.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
http://leonardodicaprio.org/
What's your contribution?
Perhaps its all about presentation... It would have been a lot easier to believe if:
1. There had been less exaggeration in early predictions
2. They weren't saying "Vote for Me!" so loudly from their carbon burning private jets.
3. They weren't saying "Give me Money" so loudly from their carbon burning private jets.
It was poorly done and smelled very very fishy. Politicians used it to gain power, and we know how honest politicians are. What the people on the right heard was this: Science "proves" AGW, therefore let us tax you into poverty, remove your 2nd amendment rights, cram our social agenda down your throats and keep me in power indefinitely to fix it. Take it all or you are a climate heretic and will be punished accordingly. Then of course some political figures on the right took this feeling and ran with it only solidifying it. This controversy would never have taken off if it hadn't been for the politicians and their all or nothing approach to stuff. AGW's poster boy was a former democrat candidate, that was stupid.
So when somebody presents an idea and offers a solution in exchange for power and/or money, I can understand why there is resistance. If you want this to be heard and really fixed, the first step is to excoriate those using this issue for power on both sides, but I think the left has the lions share of the burden there.
If you're going to attempt wit, at least spell it correctly. Indisputable, not undisputable, you pillock.
Whining. Just like the people who modded him up. They contribute massive whining whenever anyone asks them to turn off a light or to top using a firehose to water their lawn.
Well it does when a pebble strikes your condensor and leaks POISONOUS REFRIGERANT into the atmosphere.
You realize you can purge any R134A AC system and fill it with propane who no loss in performance or seal integrity??
You realize that R134A is used in asthma inhalers? At least, the good ones? I've got one right here and It hasn't hurt me in the sli
No, but seriously, we don't use propane in automotive AC because it's a fire risk. It's used less and less commonly in general, and only in cases where if there's a leak it's not going to cause a fire.
ASE certified AC tech here
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Like so many other things, people slap a magnet on the back of their minivan to Raise Awareness, and then pretend they've done something. You being all alarmed or convinced or otherwise aware of the problem after seeing the movie, doesn't actually accomplish anything. DO SOMETHING. Plant a tree. Plant a thousand trees. Install solar panels. Change your light bulbs over to LED. Turn down the thermostat. Properly inflate your tires. Get a job closer to home. DO SOMETHING.
I've planted around 10,000 trees, and installed around 10KW of solar panels. The solar panels are on a 4-5 year schedule to pay back the money spent on them, after which it's pure profit. AND, all the CO2 emissions that have been avoided by having them producing energy. I changed jobs to reduce my drive by an hour a day. We even gave tree seedlings to our wedding reception guests. Maybe I don't have a magnet on the back of my car, but, to me, actually doing something about it is more important than "raising awareness".
Solar is a great way to do something, and, have a great investment. Where else can you put your money and get a ~5 year ROI?
That is spot on. And there was no need, incidentally. McKinsey has produced a bunch of cost-curves for various types of actions to reduce carbon intensity. There was plenty in there for conservative politicians to promote, had they so wished.
http://www.mckinsey.com/busine...
No, no, the button in my car says it controls the climate: when I set it, the whole planet changes temperature to suit my comfort level
Well! Problem solved, I guess!
Yes, the AC will function. But the system is not designed to contain flammable gas, so there's that...
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Nope, money and power is the major motivator for climate denial.
Lets say you have an oil company and agree with the fact that burning fossil fuel is the biggest cause for climate change, so you decide to stop selling oil and try to fund green energy.
Another company sees an opportunity here. One of the big competitors leaves the market and they can grow their profits if they just deny that climate change is real.
What company will earn more on the short, middle long and long term? Well since green energy is a step back in economical sense (more expensive, less reliable, not ready yet, ...), it is the company who denies climate change is real. They will use anything in their power to let people doubt about climate change. This includes (pseudo)-science and of course religion, but also shouting 'jobs, jobs, jobs' helps a lot.
I've been undermining your efforts by spinning the knob the other way. Hey, I have potential beachfront property here up on the hill.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
And you are greatly underestimating the damage to your cause done by telling us every other week that humanity will be extinct within 10 years.
We hardly need "science" to demonstrate any of those three facts.
The whole issue is not "if" but "how big" is the human effect on Climate Change.
It sure would be nice to get that "fact" transmitted to people too ready to label me a Climate Change Denier.
"In the realm of politics when you ideologically wreck the lives of a lot of people, justice demands you pay for it." If by "pay" you mean "sit out of office for a term", then sure. I don't recall anyone volunteering for the gallows when we were wrong about WMDs, and near-millions died for it.
...will sue you.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Leo I think wants to increase awareness for the issue to enable people like Elon to actually perform the transition to an emission free economy.
Humans do actually have an influence over earth. Maybe not as individuals, but certainly as species.
CFC has caused a hole in the ozone layer, and measures were taken to abandon OFC for most purposes, and now the ozone hole is getting smaller again: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07...
Also, some clues have been pointing towards a possible cause for a "little ice age" that struck europe during the middle of the last millenium and caused death and starvation amongst europeans to have been man made in some sense: http://phys.org/news/2011-10-t...
Hmmmm. I thought they were both ROT-13.
Don't worry, we still have 10 years before this becomes unsolvable.
Dark Reflection
This reminds me of a 9/11 truthist thing.
Even if global warming were natural, and even if George W Bush put detonation charges inside the World Trade Center, we would be facing this issue: the increase in CO2 pollution and the fires started by the planes, were enough to guarantee that the planet's temperatures increase and the WTC buildings collapsed.
I can accept the improbable crackpot hypothesis, and the mainstream hypothesis will STILL fit! And yet, I can take this perfectly working compound solution, subtract your crackpot hypothesis, and still have an explanation for what happened, which fits all the evidence. That's why the mainstream hypothesis is mainstream.
We can't "control" mother nature, but yes, we do know a way to increase the temperature if we want to. Just release shitloads of CO2. And that's what we did. Everything we have seen, is something we would expect to see if someone in the past who understood the atmosphere as well as we do now, decided to terraform Earth into a warmer place.
We may or may not get away with putting detonation charges in the WTC, but Plan B (fly jets into it and start fires to exploit the structural weakness of the truss design) is going to work. Every single architect/engineer who studies the plan slaps his forehead and says, "holy crap, that building has no chance at all against this proposed attack. We have a winner here." As operational planner, I am pretty excited about Plan B, both in terms of budget and reliability, so I'm thinking of calling it "Plan A" and I think I'll rename the crazy detonation charges idea "Plan B," assuming we bother at all.
But ok, maybe there were detonation charges too. They just never got set off, because the guy in charge of setting them off, got killed when the towers collapsed. Oh, the hazards of a half-assed Plan B.
Ok, maybe there is a natural warming too. But it's basically impossible to measure because it's totally and utterly overwhelmed by the temperature increase that we've gotten by adding shitloads of CO2 to the atmosphere.
You don't seem to understand what "settled" means. "Settled" doesn't mean that new evidence is rejected; it means we've reached the point where the burden of proof is clearly on one side of a question.
I don't even know what that means.
I heard that twenty-five years ago. We're all suppose to be dead now.
Butbutbut! The government scientist conspiracy will put me in jail if I present my data!!!! I'll be killed and lose my job if I release these findings that disprove AGW!!!!!!eleven!1!! That's why you can't trust the "science!" It's a liberal big government globalist conspiracy! That's why they keep reverting my edits to Wikipedia! The ancient Greeks were wrong! Reality is unknowable!
Have you seen any evidence at all to support the "settled science" that wants me to believe in the Ball Earth model? With your own eyes??? Hmm???????
The lizards from between the 3rd and 4th dimensions don't want you to know that the azimuthal equidistant map is the true map of the earth, which is flat! The sun never actually "sets"--it just roves around in a circle with sunset being an optical illusion that happens because of atmospheric haze, just like the sun can't illuminate the depths of the ocean! The Antarctic ice wall proves AGW is a Thubanite hoax!
-- The rest of this sad, sad thread
" What the relevant parts of the scientific community are still haggling about is:"
Those points being the actual meaningful aspects of this controversy, it sounds like an admission that the science is just not yet settled.
"The planet is fine, the people are fucked." - George Carlin
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
I live in North Central Texas. I haven't watered my lawn for two years (still pretty green). I recycle. I have my lights on timers so I never forget to turn them off. I adjust the timers as needed. I use low energy bulbs. I use a programmable thermostat and have gotten used to being a little warmer or a little colder as the seasons change. My wife and I both have to work but we own cars that are easier on the gas. I'm not going to list every lifestyle change I've made in support of doing my part. I am a reasonable person when it comes to conservation and being environmentally friendly. I think man does contribute to climate change. I think we can make reasonable changes to how we live and that those changes may negate some of the issues. But I also believe that some of us are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. Not all of the suggestions I've read for reducing our footprint are viable right now. Perhaps in the future we can (and should) revisit some of the less doable ideas. But an objection based on practicality or inability doesn't mean a person is an Earth burning ludite,lowIQ,moronic,sciencehatingidiot. That's where I get wrapped around the axle on this subject. When a nuanced opinion is categorized as being from a denier and when the mouthpiece for the message is a hypocrite. This all-or-nothing, burn em all to the ground attitude toward people that don't agree with you 100% is self-defeating.
Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
RIGHT. So I caught a bit of this. Leonardo needs to understand his surroundings better which is ripe given the whole movie is him going around checking out his 'surroundings'. Point is that in the movie he taks about shooting his move The Revenant in Canada, specifically Alberta. They were shooting there because they needed snow. They wake up one day and the snow is all melted. Leonardo acts like this is some 'grand climate change' thing...its NOT its called a freakin' CHINOOK. A warm wind that blows down off the Rockies, and they happen quickly. You can have -10 in the morning with a foot of snow, and +10 or 20 in the afternoon, snow melting all away etc. It's been happening there for ever (at least for as long as we've kept records).
Once I saw that, I thought 'hmm, well what else is in this propaganda film that he's misleading us about?'...That is not to say I don't believe the climate is changing. What I'm saying is that if you're going to mix falsehood or innuendo with truth you're going to cause more doubt and uncertainty than you should. But hey, THEY believe the rest of us are stupid and can't decide for ourselves what is happening & how we will react, we need to be have it spoon fed to us & our 'opinions molded'...good luck with that
Michael Mann, the fraudster.
www.wattsupwiththat.com
www.climatedepot.com
What the hell does Leonardo de Caprio know about anything, living the life of a multi-millionaire, unlike the rest of us.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/01/dismal-ratings-for-dicaprios-global-warming-epic-before-the-flood-beaten-by-bubble-guppies/
Most of us are sick of 'Climatedot' and it's endless 'catastrophic man-made global warming' -sorry - 'climate change' bullshit, every single day...
It's a pathology. Leftism, I mean.
Indeed it is a form of suffering so many have to endure, I think you are right. Perhaps Rightism would be a psychopathy? Antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, bold, disinhibited, egotistical traits. Don't take it personally all I'm saying is I don't think we have encountered a time when the term 'Right wing facist' has ever been an oxy-moron. I mean most of those guys were psychopaths, Hitler was a right wing facist, wasn't he?
The problem is real, it is undisputed and aggressive actions are needed now, if not better yesterday.
"Well, we don't know what we need to do, but we need to do lots of it! Now hand over your money and your liberties."
Can't do that. I already gave my liberties to the Patriot Act. And my money to Iraqi Freedom.
Climate change is happening and has always happened since the beginning of time. Parts of the earth that were desert are now seas and vice versa. Ice ages have come and gone and will continue to do so. These cycles of climate change happened before mankind came along and will happen long after mankind is gone but there is no disputing that man is contributing to the current cycle of climate change. Generally, the cycles are so long (in time) that they're not easily recognized, but mankind has accelerated the change through industry and environmental disruption.
It is important, though, to understand _the other side of the equation_. We've been using coal to heat and power our homes, for instance, along with other fuels. If we did not use coal, how many millions of acres of trees would we have to burn to provide the same heat to the same number of homes? There's such a hue and cry about GMOs (and I believe there is GMO abuse, so I'm not defending that) but GMOs allow 1 acre of land to render double or triple the amount of non-GMO crop. Should we then not have GMOs and instead clear three times as much forest to grow crops to feed the growing population of the world? Which would be more catastrophic?
So, my point is, yes, mankind is contributing to climate change, but its happening with or without us and if we didn't do the things we are doing that contribute to climate change, doing something different would also have a negative effect, resulting in changes. If we want to eliminate the negative effects of mankind on our environment, including climate then we must eliminate mankind. If we want to reduce mankind's impact, we must reduce the population of mankind. Its simple arithmetic.
The naysayers, pessimists and alarmists seem to make all the headlines all the time but there are plenty of things happening that are cause for optimism. It's okay to raise the alarm about bad things happening but we need to balance those with acceptance of the good things that are happening all the time lest we wring our hands in dispair and resort to wailing and slashing our wrists. There is plenty of research, history a literature out there for those who are truly interested in the facts rather than being susceptible to only one-sided and incomplete context. If you're willing to be enlightened substantially and not just accept all the bad news as the only news I can recommend so great reading from a famous author, historian and researcher, Matt Ridley. As a starting point, read his book called "The Rational Optimist" - it'll give you a much needed perspective in this deluge of pessimism we're all subject to.
Does Google not work in your country? I can't be bothered to copy and paste the results for you here, but just do a search for your own phrase "criminal prosecution of climate change deniers" (without the quotes). I am pretty sure you will find more than one.
Oh, ok... here is one to get you started: http://www.washingtontimes.com...
The problem is real, it is undisputed and aggressive actions are needed now, if not better yesterday.
That kind of depends on the answer to question #1, wouldn't you say?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The minority is simply a vocal one. Every time an AGW story gets posted, they come out of the woodwork to deny it.
They come out of the woodwork to scream about Crooked Hillary and her criminal activities, too, yet she is leading the current /. poll by quite a margin. I find that amazing for a site that is supposedly so conservative.
Either that, or the poll is rigged.
The science says that doubling the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere results in 3.7 W/m^2 of additional atmospheric forcing. This is generally held to equate to a 1 degree difference in global temperature. Water vapor is known to be an excellent greenhouse gas, and warmer air can hold an exponentially larger amount of water. There are vast reservoirs of liquid water on this planet. The feedback cycle is complicated but strongly positive. There are a number of other obvious feedbacks connected with melting ice.
You can talk about models and trust all day. People argued about Einstein too. His theories were even more controversial and less well-supported. You don't need rhetoric, you need facts. We've been looking for facts that would disprove AGW for about a century, and we haven't found them because they don't exist. Disputing global warming is very much like disputing gravity; you're inherently proposing wholesale violation of known physical laws.
Now, there is some room to argue about severity, but not much. Arrhenius calculated about a six degree increase per doubling of CO2, and a significant part of work of the last hundred years has been improving on that estimate. We know that the sensitivity cannot be less than 1 degree, and there are a bunch of really obvious reasons why H2O would magnify the effect. So now we've blown past 400ppm and show no signs of stopping. We don't need a model to figure out what's going to happen here. The model is to figure out how quickly this is going to happen. We're already seeing lots of melting glaciers. I grew up in Alaska, and even in the span of my life the change has been dramatic. When you're standing on the spot where several cubic miles of ice has been for the last few millennia, and that ice has completely vanished to the point where the glacier is no longer even visible, and that change happened in ten years, it becomes very hard to dispute that the world is changing dramatically. The entire state of Alaska is melting, particularly on the tidewater and low alpine glaciers which are more accessible and noticeable. The same thing is happening with damn near every glaciated area in the world.
It is not enough to suggest the models are inaccurate. You are in need of some fact which shows they are wrong. Then you can start trying to reconcile the observed warming with your theory. Alternately you could examine the published research to find out whether improvements could be made to the models. You know, like all the rest of those climate scientists. Your trust issues are the result of your choices. You have chosen to elevate your own doubt over empirical fact. So now you have put yourself in the position of picking and choosing what parts of the world to believe in. Personally I try not to get into arguments with reality, but if you do then being labeled a "denier" is probably the least of your problems.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
You must be driving down the Antelope Freeway...
Does Google not work in your country? I can't be bothered to copy and paste the results for you here, but just do a search for your own phrase "criminal prosecution of climate change deniers" (without the quotes). I am pretty sure you will find more than one.
Tried that. Got a bunch of links to Breitbart and the Washington Times. Which is sort of its own fact-check, in a sad way.
Oh, please. Show me one person who has called for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers.
If you say "No one says X, that's crazy;" it's almost certain you will find someone crazy enough to say X.
Lest you think it's just idiots, here's a quote from a top climate scientist:
CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
He's mentioned in the credits: Alexei Berteig. He does lots of commercial, documentary, and now entertainment video work. He recently moved to Vancouver from Beijing. You can check his stuff out at Fashioner Films.
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
Ich kann Deutsch ziehmlich gut lesen, danke. Und das ist jedenfalls nicht die richtige Artikel.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
You're seriously complaining about one person and one jet? Kind of insignificant in relation to his helping raise awareness, don't you think? Well, you actually demonstrated that you probably don't.
Would it be better if he drove all that distance? Took a bus, maybe? Or are you just jealous because you don't have a private jet of your own?
A cap and trade energy market? That's rationing by another name.
Perhaps an example would help.
Suppose you write a scientific paper which states, offhand, that T-Rex was a cold-blooded theropod dinosaur of the late Cretaceous period, about 70 million years ago. Since the thermoregulation of dinosaurs is currently still an open question, you have to support any definite an unqualified claim of cold-bloodlessness with evidence. However you don't have a burden of proof on the taxonomic classification or geological period because those questions are currently settled and everyone knows the evidence supporting those conclusions.
Now suppose I write a paper that says T-Rex was a warm-blooded theropod dinosaur which went extinct 4000 years ago because it wouldn't fit on Noah's ark. I could actually do that. I wouldn't have to justify saying T-Rex was a theropod dinosaur, but if I wanted people to take me seriously (i.e., publish me in an actual scientific journal), I'd have to supply proof for every other claim in that sentence. I'd have a burden of proof to show that dinosaurs are warm-blooded (because that's an open question), that they lived 4000 years ago (because that contradicts settled science) and that the Noah's ark story is factually true (because that contradicts settled science).
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Global warming does not met steel beams.
And this is where the hyperbole comes in. There are zero climate change models that predict a Venus like Earth, nor one where "we all die", or "destroy most of the surface of the planet". The problem is that too many of the solutions that are being proposed are poo pooed by eco warriors for reasons of ideological purity. Mass conversion of coal to natural gas, nope. Investment in nuclear power, nope, crash program to develop fusion, nope. Rather we're playing around with credits and caps that in large part transfer wealth from the poor to the rich while having minimal effect on CO2 emissons
Can the effects be reasonably limited or reversed?
Not well understood at all. Estimates are that Kyoto and the Paris Accords fully implemented will have pretty minimal impact on climate (if all the models are perfect, which they are not). An investment of $13.5 trillion, plus pressures to raise the cost of carbon energy, preventing 3rd world countries from growth that involves any carbon-based energy, are all pretty aggressive measures.
it is undisputed and aggressive actions are needed now
That doesn't follow.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
The 'scientific community' as it were has no business in addressing item 3), at least no more business than anyone else. And I'm not at all sure anyone is particularly worried about 'least/cheapest amount of work' per se. They want to TELL you that their preferred solution is the 'least/cheapest way to solve the issue' but what they seemingly fail to grasp is that if the 'underlying physical processes are extremely complex', the 'underlying social processes of society are even MORE complex'. In other words they want to use the power of the state to 'pick their preferred method' which will have unknown & unknowable consequences on society but they'll do massive amounts of social engineering without regard to the fact they have no clue what the outcome of that will be.
These are the same people (not the scientists but again item 3 isn't about the science) that will cause MASSIVE depressions, put people out of work, cause global economic catastrophe and than lie about their role in it.
Using a guy who could likely barely tie his shoes without someone telling him if its 'right or wrong' to stump for you in a pure propaganda film is no way to 'address the issue'.
Humans change their surroundings, and we'll continue to do that at massive scales because well there are 7 BILLION of us and growing, when we've changed our surroundings sufficiently that we can no longer sustain that size of population humans will adapt. That doesn't mean it will be 'worse' or 'better' just 'different'.
Your logical fallacy is: Genetic
"You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit."
I found more evidence of the conspiracy! Black people burned their own church in a FALSE FLAG operation and painted Trump graffiti!
Obviously a REAL right-winger would NEVER do that, so it had to be those left-wing naggers!
Trump 2016!
Burning coal is 18th century technology. Moving on to more efficient 21st century technologies may well be an advantage, not a disadvantage, and being early in adopting technologies that the rest of the world will move to could have significant advantages.
You may be right or not. So far it is only a wishful thinking. Coal is still the cheapest. When something else becomes cheaper then people and companies will gladly move to it.
Today's consensus is usually tomorrow's laughingstock.
There is also the tendency that, in groups, people react with herd behavior (panic or mania).
Alternative Right.
changes. If I wanted always summer I'd go to the Venezula, or if I wanted always winter I'd go to Canada. I like - I WANT - the climate to change! If God had wanted it any other way it would not happen!
Just be sure to bring your own toilet paper, that worker's paradise is out of just about everything related to civilized living.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
There were times in Earth history when it was much more hotter than now. Animals survived. Why do you think people would die?
Let me add some information for the tunnel-focused group that discards common sense and external data they prefer not to look at:
a.) man-made climate change is happening, BUT it is not the cause of global catastrophe in and of itself. Hell, if there were thousands of cattle (or related) creatures in a very unstable surface plate area (ocean on one side), and they were hunted by predators during the day but not at night; a massive plate shift accompanied by earthquakes one night happened and the plate developed a huge opening that was already in progress. Next morning, predators go out to hunt and have no way of getting to that area because of the land shift being too great for the predators to pass. If you want to argue the possibility of that happening, let's say the problem is that a river got diverted in the process and now it's impassible due to the current and size. Given resources (water, minerals, etc) for plants to grow, including grass, there is plenty of food for said animals. They multiply and multiply. After a few thousand years, there is a huge area that's a methane source large enough to say "cattle-made climate change is happening". What do the cattle do, kill themselves to reduce their "ecological footprint" so they have a happy place that doesn't change to live in for a few thousand more years? NO! They live and adapt to change or naturally die off. They have no freaking clue at all that they play a part in the global climate (let's say a .01% temperature increase every year). 3000 years later, the temperature has gone up 30 degrees! OH MY GOD! Pause. You're thinking in a linear fashion. There is a lot of other shit (pun intended) that happens in that 3000 year window and was, mind ya, happening before and at the time of the huge population divide mentioned above. Volcanoes, ocean vents, gas pocket releases, huge fires that burn for thousands of years (hey, without Humans the oil and gases underground don't just sit there; they grow deeper, higher in pressure). Natural "oil" spills from openings and vertical crust divisions. One night, several lightning strikes hit trees on the back-end of a powerful supercell thunderstorm. A fire spreads from tree to tree and eventually reaches the pools of oil. Whoosh. Let the emissions begin! Thought-check: were you thinking of the storm, spreading fire, successive oil ignition happening where the cattle were? I was mentioning someplace else on the planet, very far away from the cattle. Hell, the cattle, even if they had Human-level senses and ability to understand them, would have no idea that it happened. Oh, also a volcano just erupted in the opposite hemisphere, 9182 statute miles from the cattle when I'm asking this thought-check question.
b.) DUH. Self-centered, linear, tunneled, biased thinking again! The planet has climate shifts with regular cycles due to the polar tilt. In between those cycles are billions of events from "nearly insignificant" to "massive and Earth-shattering". Oh, I forgot to mention in the scenario above that a large meteor hit the planet somewhere in there. It was enough to darken the skies by a tiny 1% for 5 years before it was halfway mixed out of the stratosphere by natural progression. Oh, and that's just the dust, soot, gases, and other junk from that meteor hit, not the other emissions that were taking place at the time because of its shock wave triggering a couple more volcanic fissures to open on up that were building pressure. Aw, crap, oil was near that area, too, and several of the fissures let it burst to an area where magma is flowing from the new volcanoes that arose from the fissures that arose from the shock wave that arose from the meteor impact that, mind ya, all had absolutely nothing to do with the cattle and their methane-rich emission area. Oh, forgot to mention the fissures let carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen bromide, nitrogen oxide, helium, methane, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, oxygen, hydrogen chloride, su
Those refrigerants are completely inert at normal conditions. Hell we really don't know if there effect on the ozone hole is even real for sure.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Reality distortion fields are not only used to sell phones.
I really really really hope you are right, but your optimism omits too much evidence that the Earth is dying very very very soon.
Actually, there appears to be an economical alternative. Natural gas can be "cracked" into hydrogen gas and carbon black by bubbling it through a column of molten tin. The carbon accumulates as a removable layer on top of the tin, and pure hydrogen comes off the top of the column. Switching to a hydrogen economy would be difficult, but it certainly is doable. Disposing of the carbon black is a problem, but is minor compared to the continued emission of CO2. Might be able to pelletize the carbon and dump it into a deep ocean trench ( I can imagine the screech coming from the environmentalist at such a suggestion! Deafening! ) Going this route would provide a solution to CO2-induced global warming, but I really doubt that government has the will or competence to do it. https://web.anl.gov/PCS/acsfue... http://newatlas.com/hydrogen-p...
Look at the raising costs for tropical storms and other freak events alone.
I still have not seen any convincing evidence that climate change is making tropical storms worse or more frequent, or causing any additional "freak events". "Because Bill Nye said so" is not convincing evidence. The "rising costs" of damage is completely explained by the rising cost of development in areas affected by tropical storms.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I would add realclimate.com and Wattsupwiththat.com to the list.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Because soon (10-20 years) in many places that is all that will grow.
So if you are going to intertwine science and politics like that, in ways that will invariably lead to the needless suffering of many millions of people if you are wrong, what happens if you are wrong? You don't get to just walk away and say "sorry about the shit we did to you, science corrected itself. Don't you Fucking Love Science?" In the realm of politics when you ideologically wreck the lives of a lot of people, justice demands you pay for it. So, are you ready to say the science is settled, we trust it, let's act on it and if scientists firmly disprove it we're ready to face whatever consequences the political system demands of us?
How is it possible you're NOT applying this to the fossil fuels side? Dumping excess carbon into the air IS A FUCKING INSANE SCIENCE EXPERIMENT. Not even a hypothesis driven one.
It's looking like every one who was involved in making those decisions isn't going to walk away and say "sorry," they're just going to be dead of old age long before our children have to deal with the worst effects.
So, are you ready to say the science is settled, we trust it, let's act on it and if scientists firmly disprove it we're ready to face whatever consequences the political system demands of us?
Okay, we should cryopreserve the Koch brothers, the GOP, every climate change denier. If climate change never happens, we'll thaw them out in 2100 and let them continue living. If climate change does occur, we'll thaw them and put them in to hard labor in the sahara desert for the remainder of their lives. I'm 100% okay with that.
The current trend is no statisically significant warming for about 18 years, and considering how few sunspots there have been lately, it's likely to cool down a bit as well.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
If you invent a perpetual motion machine, a physicist isn't obliged to consider your position carefully. He just says, "That violates conservation of energy." and he's done.
Well, everyone hates a smarty pants but, strictly speaking, that's only true for perpetual motion machines of the first kind kind (that violate the first law of thermodynamics). For perpetual motion machines of the second kind (that violate the second law of thermodynamics), he'd have to invoke something along the lines of the Fluctuation Theorem. :)
https://memegenerator.net/inst...
Show me one person who...
Always a dangerous question to ask. The internet is very large and you're likely to find someonem, somewhere who holds an opinion, no matter how stupid. I have heard this a lot from people bashing liberals recently. Find one idiot who said something stupid then say "liberals say...". Naturally the fact that one can also find rare nutcases who generally identify with their cause that say stupid things doesn't seem to prevent that line of argument.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.
I'm not sure that is a logical fallacy. Breitbart has very little credibility. I've encountered tried fact checking a few articles in the past and every time they seem to boil down to unsourced facts or experts who appear to have little expertise. Sometimes you get blog posts with no backing too.
Once you've debunked the first 5 Breitbart articles and not had a single one which comes up as vaguely sound, one can entirely reasonably conclude that the source is unsound and so anything pointing to Breitbart as a source has no credibility.
That doesn't of course prove the claim it false, it just means the claim has no veracity, much as if there was no corroborating source.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If that's true than Mann vs Steyn trial of the century should be a slam dunk, instead Mann is trying to weasel out of discovery, and is dragging it out as long as humanly possible.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The current trend is no statisically significant warming for about 18 years,
No, it's not. You're quoting denier talking points from several years ago. The purported "pause"-- which never reached the level of statistical significance-- went back to a rising trend years ago. http://blogs.discovermagazine.... Get some up-to-date talking points, why not?
and considering how few sunspots there have been lately, it's likely to cool down a bit as well.
Considering that meteorologists and climate scientists have been looking for a link between sunspots and temperature for over a hundred years now, and have still failed to find any link, this is a speculation that doesn't seem to have any evidence. The latest solar cycle (24) was lower than the previous one... but the temperature rise during this cycle was more than during the previous one. So, if anything, the most recent solar cycles show the opposite from what you suggest.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
You do know that Al Gore and DiCaprio aren't scientists, right?
Neither is Bill Nye.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Genau.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I want to see the doom. I want to see the famines, the floods, the droughts, the hurricanes, the biblical flooding? Where are they? Why are coastal realestate pricest the highest they have ever been in history. Because nothing is happening! There is not a shred of any evidence that the climate is impacting our quality of life anywhere. If you happen to live in a flood plain, or hurricane zone and get hit. Tough life sucks sometimes! But its not because of global warming.
few problems with that..
Plants actually need CO2 to grow, as seen in africa, parts are now greening due to the extra rainfall due to mositure in the air due to warming and CO2..
Due to natural locking up of CO2, CO2 levels have been reducing for millions of years, estimates are that we had limited time before levels would have got to the 140ppm level where plants die off, then we would be totally fucked, releasing CO2 has actually extended the time when this will happen..
But civilisation as we know it won't survive.
That's a foregone conclusion, whether the most dire predictions of AGW come true or not. Civilization as we know it today will not exist. Fossil fuel is a finite resource, so eventually we won't have gas stations, ICI cars, cheap crap shipping from China on giant diesel ships and trucked to your local Walmart in diesel trucks. People won't be flying coast to coast. DiCaprio (or his progenitors) won't be jetting around the world on concern tours.
There's no technology now or on the horizon to replace any of those things.
The path we're on now - slow climate change by ending the use of fossil fuels - leaves us with a rather bleak future where most of the world population is subservient to a wealth cadre of global elites, preserving the dense energy-rich resources for use by themselves alone. The only realistic hopeful vision of the future for humanity is creating and growing a vibrant commercial space program. The resources in our solar system are vast and rich. But I fear we will never be able to exploit them due to the selfishness of a few.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Ever since they switched from CFCs to HFA (c. 2008), I've had to stop using inhalers. I find that the new(ish) propellant is just as likely to make mild symptoms worse, so I only take it if I'm having a real hard time (triggered normally by allergies). The good news is that ever since I stopped working near refineries, my symptoms are fairly well controlled. Oddly, my son doesn't have any issues with his inhaler. Maybe because his body never knew the old propellant?? Who knows.
I've watched the cultists tamper with the mod points on this one. From a peak of +4, Funny and Informative have vanished. All that remains is a lone Troll. For those that have long accused /. of overt bias and tampering. There you go.
The car analogy is running full speed into a traffic jam. When do you start to brace -- at the latest point feasible or by reducing your speed to a decent level first?
That explains a lot about why people don't want to anything about climate change. Around here, you ride the gas until the last possible second. I can't count the number of times somebody has zipped ahead of me just to have to slam on their brakes as we both approach the traffic jam. And god forbid you ever let more than 3/4 car-length get between you and the guy ahead of you! Maybe your analogy works better than you intended.
Ah, so if I can find a mechanical engineer who thinks AGW is rubbish, that must mean it's true!
It will eventually. Try building something out of steel on Venus!
Starvation because large areas no longer can be farmed. Lack of water. Wars when people who lack these resources invade those who have. Vast areas with dense populations being put below the ocean level.
We are straining the capacity of the earth with the numbers as is, if we get worse conditions, we will probably not be able to compensate enough keep things going. We might, but that's an awful lot to have depending on a gamble.
But if we return to the original argument, PvtVoid denied that even one person "has called for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers".
My counterargument was that a Google search does in fact show a large number of reports of people calling for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers. I don't think the fact that one of these many links leads to Breitbart -- which you regard as an unreliable source -- negates my argument.
In fact, let's throw caution to the wind and click on that odious Breitbart link right now: http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
The article claims that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse made the following statement during a Senate Judiciary Hearing:
First, you might argue that the esteemed Senator did not actually speak these words. I confess that I do not have time to examine the Congressional Record to see if these words were really spoken. But I do trust Breitbart enough to believe they did not just make this up. Feel free to dispute this if you wish.
Second, you might argue that this statement is not really calling "for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers". The way I read it, the Senator equates "the climate denial apparatus" of the fossil fuel industry with tobacco industry fraud. He then states that the Department of Justice won a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) action against the tobacco industry. He then complains, with obvious dissatisfaction, that "the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme."
I don't know how you parse this, but it sounds very much to me as if Senator Whitehouse is calling "for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers". I submit that this is sufficient evidence to disprove PvtVoid's claim that not one person has called for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers.
Canadians are known for being polite, not nice. There's a difference. Personally, I think it's because if you weren't polite, you'd all kill each other before the first thaw of spring.
(Score: -1, Stupid)
This is incorrect by your use of "in the blip of man's existence". Even your "credible" scientists agree it is the hottest humans or human-like ancestors have ever experienced, by some way; this is going back tens of thousands of years.
False. Study, study, study.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Wildlife is changing as well, I really hope malaria does not make it up here.
That's the thing. With the higher average temperature comes all kids of parasites and new deceases for both the plant and animal life. Forrest industry will be bleeding when that happens.
The problem with deniers is that all they need is one source for them to declare hundreds of other sources wrong. Go to the bottom of the Wikipedia article and look at the sources cited there. If that's not good enough, there are literally thousands of reputable sources to choose from. Well over 95% of which support the general conclusion that man-made global warming is real, and is really dangerous. Besides, just throwing up your hands and saying somebody else's sources are shitty doesn't make your argument for you. Where are your sources, and what yardstick do you measure shittiness by?
https://xkcd.com/1732/
While I don't disagree, physics? What does that have to do with anything? I guess at a certain level one could argue that everything is physics, but climatology isn't something I would first associate with the term.
You're validating his argument. The academic echo chamber hasn't let anything contrary through, therefore it must a conspiracy.
Though, there's a decent argument. There are bad publications in every field ... except climatology.
I submit that this is sufficient evidence to disprove PvtVoid's claim that not one person has called for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers.
OK, sure. I was more concentrating on the idea that it's reasonable to dismiss Breitbart out of hand as having no credibility. The trouble is that "not one person said..." is the internet is very large and in so many cases you can fine some nutter somewhere.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Leonardo DiCaprio is a high school dropout with a GED. Why is it that when AGW proponents make their case their credentials are never questioned, but when skeptics speak they're shouted down for not being climatologists?
Then present some new evidence.
Oh there is NO evidence against the theory ? Then until that changes - the science is settled, and that's the meaning of the word in this context.
The "new evidence" is not "new". It's "old". There are thousands of videos, television shows, documentaries, heck go out in your back yard or to the nearest area of the most exposed rock and hack into it a bit. The evidence of global warming and cooling is already there. It happened long before Humans existed. It occured as Humans came into the picture. There are blips upward and downward based on things like meteor impacts and volcanic eruptions, but they are difficult to present as part of the big picture because the rock record doesn't collect natural data from a 100 year time frame and leave it at the same proportional thickness and "straightness", if you will. The more time passes, the more the rocks compress and the blips (like the World War 2, 4 year climate change period) become less visible. You can see it now, but 10,000 years from now, you're pushing it. Add another 0 to the end of that number and it's almost undetectable but it IS still detectable. Expensive equipment has to be used to analyze it and no one wants to pay for that because there's no net gain from a final statement of "things are progressing normally".
People with money only put it in to something they get a return from, unless they are attempting to educate the world. Now, think about it, who will be taken seriously? The oil companies funneling funds into information that is alarming where they have an interest in the "new products" that will be designed to overcome it, or the scientist with a Masters and Ph.D who says "the average processes found to occur since 3,000,000,000 years ago and today are leading to a conclusion that there is nothing going on to be alarmed about. Who is going to pay that scientist? If there isn't money, there isn't data to counterbalance data from other sources that are paid for and even encouraged. The common statement of the person who has memorized phrases and numbers (God, "Show me the peer-reviewed data" is the least realistic and educated I have read yet) as a final point in a sentence to think through everything again is absurd. Peer-reviewed data is EXCELLENT and should always be a factor. When you have money being funneled in to a biased idea with the outcome expected to support the hypothesis, and money being funneled in to another entity with the same hypothesis, ummm... Gee.. I wonder if the data will show as "scientifically absolutely true"...? Of course it will. There's money on the line and every Human being is concerned about themselves first, sometimes their offspring next, and the rest is a haze. You only have one side fighting a point with loads of money as encouragement. The other side looks at the data with all they have and shows that there's a trend of compression in ice and rock data over time, so logically, of course, you see more "change" and more of a delta from now to a short period backward. You see huge events from the past in compressed matter, but not the tiny ones. By tiny, I mean less than a century.
It's not "settled". It's "incomplete". The ones who say it's "settled" are akin to a parent saying, "...because I said so."
Mathematics is not an art. It's a way of proving truth and actualities. The solving of problems might take on an "art form" or people that solve at high levels might be considered "an artist" in mathematics, but that doesn't make it art. Mathematics can prove or disprove the science. You seem to be confusing "pure mathematics" with actual mathematics. Big difference.
.02C then later said the tolerance for correctness of that claim was ± .1C. That means that there is absolutely no chance that the number they claimed is accurate. That's mathematics and there is no evolving model of it that would change to make that number being any where close to being correct. So when someone shouts that from the mountain top and then ignores the questioning of how their math doesn't add up, I am going to believe that person is full of shit, mathematically speaking.
That's why I believe the group that pushes AGW ignores math because it disproves many of their claims. In 2014, I believe, Nasa and Noaa claimed it was the warmest year ever by
Sea level rise is very steady, are you offering data? It has been around 3mm per year, right?
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
Also, what "trends" over the last 30 years, or 50, or 100 do you think are note worthy? Again, what data would you reference?
Jagadish Shukla and about 19 others; and of course there is always AGs United for Clean Power a coalition consists of 15 state attorneys general (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington State), as well as the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
He is marked a troll because he pointed out the known creditably issues of wikipedia? Yeah, do a college paper and use wikipedia as your sources. See how far that gets you................
Ever hear "the boy that cried wolf" analogy? If you keep claiming something and it doesn't happen time and again, people tend to think you are full of shit or an asshole. Maybe both.........
Let me fix that quote for you, it seems you highlighted the wrong part of it.
Most deniers are common idiots who live comfortable lives they don't want to see any changes to, and consequently live in denial.
These are people who know what they are doing, and deliberately are not only spreading lies and misconceptions but actually financing and sourcing them, so they can profit from the status quo. They are not "deniers", they are fraudsters. Not nearly the same thing.
He got caught up in money laundering with ties to the Clinton foundation and has been the butt end of jokes on the internet for months. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/leonardo-dicaprio-malaysian-money-scandal-920199 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/leonardo-dicaprio-backs-hillary-clinton-921326
The street art in LA about his sorry pathetic rear is especially hilarious: http://s22.postimg.org/gl9n1eeox/Sabo_640x480.jpg
Climate science is one of the biggest for use of computer simulations, I gather.
Physics (with nuclear and other weapons) have been the biggest user traditionally. Today all scientific fields use computational models extensively, including the humanities. Even economics is starting to become tractable with the new supercomputers, and developments in mathematics and algorithms.
Weather modeling is the area you are probably meaning, and it is using different models than the climate science, models that are computationally expensive and more local, but bounded by the time of relevancy. It is true though that increasing resolution with the climate models as well is a necessary condition for modelling the current climate, and therefore for making predictions. This requires supercomputer time. Computational and data models have indeed become the third and fourth paradigms of science.
But because this natural vagueness runs counter to the "it is settled" claim,
Funnily enough, the more hot air is generated, the less settled the climate becomes.. ;)
Now, does anyone have a link to those charts which show the models continue to run much hotter than the real climate?
Last I heard the models have been too conservative instead of being too liberal with their predictions.
Science is never settled. It's always open to re-evaluation upon presentation of new evidence.
You don't seem to understand what "settled" means. "Settled" doesn't mean that new evidence is rejected; it means we've reached the point where the burden of proof is clearly on one side of a question.
If you invent a perpetual motion machine, a physicist isn't obliged to consider your position carefully. He just says, "That violates conservation of energy." and he's done. This is useful, and indeed necessary feature of the way science works; otherwise scientists would spend all their time re-litigating well-established results because some crackpot had a brainstorm.
Nonetheless it is possible to mount a credible attack on settled science. Retroviruses turned the whole "central dogma of molecular biology" on its head. Yes, they actually called it that. And there are serious attempts at overturning conservation of momentum using quantum theory. An attack on a well-established theory has to be narrow in its specific claims and impeccably supported. If it succeeds, then the burden of proof is subsequently altered.
We've reached the point where it's unreasonable to demand scientists spend their disproving your beliefs about what is happening to climate and why. It doesn't mean you can't attack the theory of anthropogenic climate change, you just do it from a point where the burden of proof is on you.
The burden of proof is on those who aren't funded, because there's nothing to be gained from the outcome if the answer isn't "yes, it's happening and it's accelerating." You're biased, so there's no reason to even talk to you about re-analysis. If you were proven wrong, you would fight tooth and nail until you had no option but to say, "But I'm still right" and fade into the background, so as not to be noticed admitting defeat. I'm NOT saying you would be. I'm saying that's how you fight an argument - like every other Human. There's nothing bad in that; the only bad that comes from it is biased output. Collective biased output combined with uneducated reading of "proof" only grows the biased culture, if you will. The only thing that can happen to prove you wrong is impossible. We're in a warming trend (actually overdue, given the rock and ice records). If it warms because of Humans, you're right. If it warms without Human impact, you're right. Either way, you're right. Reality is a bit different than a biased opinion that leaves you with a feeling of superiority and "everyone agrees with me". That's embellished far too much - everyone and superiority are black-and-white feelings and positions. The reality is that you're like other Humans - you have many biases, but the ones that are relevant in my point in this comment are anchoring bias, confirmation bias, attentional bias, the "cheerleader effect", you definitely have the "bias blind spot", clustering illusion bias, continued influence effect, conservatism effect (you're male; that's almost forced; hell, I have that one but I make efforts to overcome it to remain scientific), expectation bias.... Ok I'm going to stop there. I'm sick of wasting my time because you're not even reading.
This is all overshadowed by hyperbolic discounting. Good luck getting rid of that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Anybody old enough and lucky enough to have children know that you'd give away everything you own to save your kid's life. How much would you give if a criminal had a gun to the child's head and was threatening (he might be lying) to kill the kid? What if just 33% of expert physicians (on some disease) you knew said that there was a disease that was going to kill your kid unless you addressed it now, while the other 66% of expert physicians weren't sure... and let's say the cure was non-invasive or dangerous to your child's health either way but was sometimes inconvenient.
I'm pretty darn sure making a better, safer, cleaner world, even if it cuts into our profits or conveniences, is the right way to do things. I don't care about political sides in this matter. We all live on this planet, and we should all hope to make it a better world for future generations.
No matter what languages, there was just way too much phlegm in that post.
The "political science" is not settled though. Relevant parts of concern to political scientists are, "how can I continue to to receive campaign donations from major greenhouse gas producers?"
Actually, that sums up the Global Warming deniers' newest scam. It's becoming impossible for any rational person to deny it's happening, so they're changing their prattle to, "It's already gone too far to do anything about it. We might just as well keep on the way we are and trust science to find a way to fix things when the excrement really hits the fan."
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
If you use a chalkboard then it's mathematics. If you do experiments then it's science. If you actually make something happen then it's engineering.
My some of my (older) family members are climate change skeptics. The most effective analogy I use is this. "Aunt Stacy, every week you fill up your truck with about 140lbs of gasoline. Then at the end of the week it's magically all gone, and you need to fill up again. What do you think happens to that 140lbs? Of course it goes into the air, all 140 lbs of it. And we know that stuff is bad news, because you don't want to be locked in the garage with the car running either" Now I know I'm conflating CO and CO2, leaving out the finer details of the combustion chemical reaction, but it makes the point to a 70 year old, that as an individual you are polluting the atmosphere. Trying to pollute less is better and more responsible.
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2...
"Climate One program at the Commonwealth Club of California, recorded Oct. 21, 2016. Greg Dalton, moderator." 7:58+
"Truthfully...white people are the problem"
I'm curious in what context such a statement (applying any other ethnicity, or special interest group) could be uttered without the speaker immediately (& rightly) being castigated and socially outcast?
Let's see:
"Truthfully...black people are the problem"
"Truthfully...gays are the problem"
"Truthfully...jews are the problem"
And one wonders how the "Climate Change" message doesn't seem to resonate with the majority of Americans?
Perhaps patronizing racism *isn't* the kind of thing with which one builds consensus?
-Styopa
>Now I know I'm conflating CO and CO2,
You were better to "conflate" the two because of current emissions controls. The point of a catalytic converter is to make CO into CO2.
Unless your Aunt Stacy is running an antique from before the first gas crisis.
--
BMO
Rather we're playing around with credits and caps that in large part transfer wealth from the poor to the rich while having minimal effect on CO2 emissons
[Mr. Burns, 'steepling' his fingers] "Excellent!"
That's a huge 'tell' for me right there, that the solution being pushed is simply a wealth-transfer system that has no actual effect on CO2 (like new 'scrubber' tech, alt. energy sources, etc).
That tells me that the 'problem' is that there's money out there that they've just gotten around to figuring out how to steal with "OMGClimateChangeWe'reAllGonnaDieGiveUsAllYourMoneyQuick&STFUYouHeretic!!"
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
It is CYCLICAL and we entering a cooling trend. Fucking hipster libtards.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
science has been predicting the weather for the next 2 days for decades, they still get it wrong
but somehow they can predict the climate for the next 100 years
thats n-word tier rationale right there
everybody knows its just a way to keep poor countries poor and tax people, they cant predict SHIT
I'd disown a young idiot relative with arguments that idiotic.
How's THIS analogy:
"dude, every week you fill up your belly with many pounds of food and drinks. Then at the end of the week it's magically all gone, and you need to fill up again. What do you think happens to that stuff? Of course it goes into the sewer, all of it. And we know that stuff is bad news, because you don't want to be locked in the sewer with the toilets flushing either" so probably you should stop eating and drinking, polluting less is better and more responsible.
(sigh)
The planet will not be destroyed by global warming caused by cars and other conveniences - it will be destroyed by a generation of pompous idiots who think themselves wise but who have actually just been thoroughly propagandized. The plummeting national IQ is something our ancestors never saw coming. Next time, try having a real, solid, argument and don't be arguing in favor of harming millions of people today in the hopes of possibly knocking half a degree of the average temperatures a century from now when our descendants will be better equipped to deal with it IF if even happens and IF they even think there's somethng wrong with the climate they inherit.
You are seeming to suggest that the fact that we are not really sure yet how to present the case to the jury means that there was no case to begin with.
The very nature of climate and the history of this planet is not enough evidence to prove that climate changes, sometimes DRASTICALLY without humans even existing? The data the AGW proponents are using shows this. The data shows cataclysmic events that shaped climate for millions of years. The data shows that the earth has cycles, some attribute it to solar cycles, some to other factors. The data about how much WE (humans, the royal "we") affect the climate is neither settled nor proven without wildly differing results from the very models we base historical events on millennia ago.
If it is unreasonable to ask scientists to be scientists, then we have lost everything. Climate change is real. It's always BEEN real. The part about us "breaking" the world is what we need to put on the shelf and talk about CLIMATE change, rather than it being "our fault." You attract more bees with honey than with vinegar.
All I see from the either "solid" side is belittling each other. Nothing substantive. Nothing scientific. Just ranting and talking over each other because "if you don't accept (X) you're dumb" or "the science of (x) is settled, you're dumb." (in so many words...)
That is, a low carbon, breathable air, greener world is a better world anyway, so we are right to start down this road, with or without AGW.
Billions of poor people would disagree with your breezy dismissal of their problems. Poverty is the obvious rebuttal to the unfounded assertion a greener world is a better world. Poor people are higher fertility than rich people and they care far less about the environment than about getting their next meal.
While the claim that a greener environment means less poor people has been sold hard, it remains in the real world that attempts to mitigate CO2 emissions result in the sort of stuff, like Denmark and Germany almost doubling the cost of their electricity, that makes more poor people rather than less.
Sea levels *are* rising - And have been since the ice age. Greenland ice is melting - This was named Greenland for a reason glaciers are melting - Thank god. Otherwise we would have never been born. Your timescale is just too narrow.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
So was it the Koch Brothers or BP that paid you to do that?
Most of us paid climate denialist shills are still waiting for that first check, those fuckers promised us the check was in the mail.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Nobody watched it on television. Even "Bubble Guppies" beat it in the ratings. People just don't want to be preached to by a self-righteous hypocrite.
>In reality 66% of scientists have no opinion about AGW
Why would any scientist care about AGW?
The AGW hypothesis isn't falsifiable.
It's outside the realm of science entirely.
it is undisputed and aggressive actions are needed now, if not better yesterday.
You had me to this point. Evidence please. Not 300 references that would have happened anyway.
Notice how unscientific the pro-urgent action arguments get in this discussion. It's all fallacy, arguing from authority, consensus, and obfuscation, or ad hominem. If the science on climate change was that clear, we could just argue from the evidence. But who understands it? It's all just a black box that is merely accepted to be true.
My view is that there are several huge warning flag here: poor climate data before about 1850 coupled with firm certainty about what happened; opaque research data and models; the strategy of urgent mitigation is sold hard, but adaptation is downplayed; research on demand combined with errors of research, presentation, or prediction that always favor the more extreme story; and a huge conflict of interest.
The car analogy is running full speed into a traffic jam. When do you start to brace -- at the latest point feasible or by reducing your speed to a decent level first?
We're a few billion people too late for a sudden stop here. Adaptation is on the table no matter what happens. And I guess I still need to point out that non-greenhouse gas pollution remains a more serious problem? We can fix all that with wealthier societies, but it requires people to have priorities over urgent climate change mitigation.
A salient quote:
You cannot reason people out of positions they didn’t reason themselves into.
Mann, subject line "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL": "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!"
A lot of cronyism was going on with the hockey team back in the day, if you weren't one of the "good ol' boys" you didn't get published, not getting published meant you weren't considered an expert and wasn't included in 98 people included in the study.
"When one looks at the published climatology papers, that 97% paper is quite low. It is more like 100%. See The Scientific Consenses on Climate Change, Oreskes in Science, December, 2004."
Oreskes is a Historian, no more qualified to publish a scientific paper than a High School teacher.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
"The problem"
Increased CO2 is causing Earth to grow gigatons of more vegetation, transforming our world into a lush green planet.
The problem is there isn't nearly enough CO2!
You compare timespans of hundreds of thousands of years with timespans of a hundred years. That's where the problem lies.
U R complete owned and manipulated by Rothschild Bankers
Since the Rothschilds own all of the media, which they bought in the early 20th century, it's easy to fool gullible retards into accepting a personal 'carbon tax'
exhale Co2? enjoy your tax. You are warming the earth!
Talk about chemtrails though, which are completely obvious to any trained meteorologist, and you'll get a complete silence about anything affecting the atmosphere.
I love "scientists"
Yes, the seas have been rising for many centuries as the contintents rebound from previous ice ages.
The Earth is also growing gigatons of extra vegatation thanks to the tasty CO2 plant food we've provided them.
Climastrology is always about listing doomsday BS and generating phony projections in an attempt to deceive and steal money, never attempting to be scientific or truthful. That's why it can't be trusted.
Did you just call the Senator from Rhode Island a nutter?
The very nature of climate and the history of this planet is not enough evidence to prove that climate changes, sometimes DRASTICALLY without humans even existing?
OK, I'll handle just one of your points; the rest I'll leave to you to work out for yourself.
Yes, climate scientists have known about the solar cycles you speak about -- the Milankovitch cycles -- and have known about them since the 1920s. This in fact was the basis for the 1950s consensus that the Earth was heading in a cooling phase. The changes were are experiencing are going in the opposite direction than what the orbital factors that drive ice ages would predict. As for other changes in solar output -- those are measurable with instruments, particularly orbital instruments, which we have had in place since the 1970s. These show very minor fluctuations in luminosity -- on the order of fifteen hundreths of a percent.
Climate change is real. It's always BEEN real. The part about us "breaking" the world is what we need to put on the shelf and talk about CLIMATE change, rather than it being "our fault." You attract more bees with honey than with vinegar.
What people would like to be true (honey) and prefer not to be true (vinegar) is irrelevant. It's not a case of "breaking" the world, it's a case of changing the world faster than we can adapt to it. I refer you to the obligatory xkcd explanation.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Inert is a bit of a stretch. Exposure to HFC-134a causes relaxation of smooth muscle tissue, which may give an additional positive effect in asthma inhalers for those of us with activity-induced bronchial asthma. But the LD50 is massive, and the danger from inhaling it is that it is heavier than air and pools in the lungs if one does not breathe vigorously, or hang upside down. The same is true of Freon (R-12/CFC-12) which was formerly used in asthma inhalers, and which was phased out because of ozone damage due to the chlorine in the molecule and not because of toxicity. HFC-134a was eliminated from asthma inhalers allegedly over the global warming concern,* and will likely be replaced in automotive use by HFO-1234yf until automotive CO2-based systems become practical.
* The use in asthma inhalers is not a serious environmental concern compared to the amount which is commonly deliberately released by shadetree mechanics, or accidentally in automobile accidents
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I keep seeing zealots on this side calling for everything incredibly invasive (in terms of liberties) public policy, to criminal prosecution of "climate change deniers."
So if you are going to intertwine science and politics like that, in ways that will invariably lead to the needless suffering of many millions of people if you are wrong, what happens if you are wrong?
You don't get to just walk away and say "sorry about the shit we did to you, science corrected itself. Don't you Fucking Love Science?" In the realm of politics when you ideologically wreck the lives of a lot of people, justice demands you pay for it. So, are you ready to say the science is settled, we trust it, let's act on it and if scientists firmly disprove it we're ready to face whatever consequences the political system demands of us?
It sounds to me like you've engaged in a bit of a double standard here. If you want to hold the scientists, and those who accept the science liable in the case that they are wrong, then surely the the proponents of the alternate explanation (be they denialists, conspiracists, whatever) are also liable if they are wrong?
Economists calculate that the cost of mitigating against climate change (though undoubtedly expensive) as a fraction of the cost of dealing with the outcomes if we do nothing. So you can imagine that your proposal brings the question of liability to the fore.
That is, those that fund the broad arm of propaganda seeking to throw the science into doubt are liable for the damage caused so far by delaying action.
Those that have in the past adopted a position ("the climate is not changing") and then smoothly, and without explanation transitioned into a contradictory position ("sure, the climate is changing, but nobody really knows why") are liable for both the first and last position.
You would agree that the concept of liability applies to all parties? I'm quite sure, that, if there were a way to arrange it, that the scientists and those that accept the science would happily enter into an arrangement where they are liable in the event they are wrong - so long as the denialists and conspiracists are held to the same standard.
Senator Whitehouse
AG Loretta Lynch
17 AGs from 15 states, the Virgin Islands and DC
Bill Nye
Michael Mann
Some representatives of the California state legislature
AND scientists:
Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT
You know, people who think that scientists don't like controversy probably don't know many of them. Shifting consensus is how reputations and careers are made. And if there were some credible line of inquiry that promised we could burn as much fossil fuel as we wanted, it wouldn't be hard at all to find funding for it.
For that matter, I'd personally like it if we could burn as much fossil fuel as we wanted -- with local pollution controls of course. But that's wishful thinking.
If you want to create some kind of grand social dynamics theory of climate change science, you should at least take time to familiarize yourself with the literature on AGW. If you go into Google Scholar you'll see that the consensus in the 1950s was that the Earth was entering a cooling period. It took fifty years to shift that consensus and the substance of how it shifted is worth studying before engaging in armchair sociology.
We're in a warming trend (actually overdue, given the rock and ice records).
Actually we should be in a cooling period. You can't just plot out the cycles and infer a period, the main driver of the cycles is the interaction of the Earth's orbital and rotational precession, which is why scientists used to think we were heading into a cooling period that should last for about the next twenty-thousand years.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Not true... the seas have risen several meters in the 10-20,000 years. Greenland was named in the last 2-3000 years. Glaciers covered NY and New England in mile thick ice as recently as 20,000 years ago.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
So by your logic, Denmark and Germany should have worse poverty than less green countries such as the US and Somalia. Appears your reasoning is incorrect.
Man, you really need that seminar!
A rational person would see data collected over less than 200 years, half of it from very inaccurate instruments, and wonder about your panicking over variations in weather as being "climate change"
The positive effects of climate change. Everybody keeps going on and on about all the bad effects of climate change but my bet is there are way more positive effects than negative. Now for you people who say, "What about the oceans getting more acidic?" That is a pollution problem not a global warming problem. The earth getting warming is great.
Are you seriously suggesting that oil companies are funneling funds into studies where the conclusion supports AGW?
Seriously?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
(catch breath)
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
ND - Stop using the phrase "Climate Change" as if it is not a Natural Occurrence.
We are mid IntraGlacial period. Of course the climate changes.
What you mean is Anthropogenic Climate Change if you are being honest, or Man Made Climate Change , if the prior to too difficult to understand.
The root of most argument, I Believe,
Ugh. If You Just Capitalize EnouGh Letters It Will Make You More Correct!
You don't seem to understand what "settled" means. "Settled" doesn't mean that new evidence is rejected;
Apparently you don't understand how the AGWCC folk intend to use the term settled science, as we can see new evidence contrary to their pet positions being consistently and continually rejected, even to the point now that they want to use USA RICO law to persecute those who have the temerity to hold an opposing position.
Have a Day!
And when a pebble strikes my condensor and leaks FLAMMABLE GAS instead, that's better how exactly? So I can have a gas explosion from my leaking AC unit..?
Bite my shiny metal ass!
Did I say AGW? Assumptions...
Mathematics can prove or disprove the science.
At least one of the following statements is true:
* You do not know what mathematics is (hint: It deals with abstract concepts).
* You do not know what science is (hint: It deals with reality).
* You do not know what a proof is (hint: It works within an axiomatic system, and we do not yet an axiomatic base for how the world operates).
In 2014, I believe, Nasa and Noaa claimed it was the warmest year ever by .02C then later said the tolerance for correctness of that claim was ± .1C. That means that there is absolutely no chance that the number they claimed is accurate.
Maybe you need to learn more maths. Or find more trivia to support your denial.
Anyone with minimal knowledge of the normal law would know that between 2014 and 2010, 2014's "real" average temperature was more than 50% likely to be the highest. Even with a full deviation in favor in denial, it is still within the top 5 years. If something that is true 19 times out of 20 isn't enough for you, maybe you should be checked for cognitive dissonnance.
Their math adds up just fine, it's you who don't understand it and the numbers they are presenting. Go read up on confidence intervals and statistics.
--- Reality doesn't care about your opinions, it happens anyway and if you are in the way you'll get squished.
So by your logic, Denmark and Germany should have worse poverty than less green countries such as the US and Somalia.
Not by my logic. But speaking of Somalia, what would happen should its electricity prices double? Are we going to see increased adoption and use of electricity by the poor?
The people demanding we slam on the brakes don't see anything other than the traffic jam. Those are the kinds of people that end up causing accidents by over braking way early and catching people by surprise.
Except you're driving a tar filled rig that take 3 miles to stop, and you see something past the ridge someonthing that could be the top of another truck, 2 miles ahead. The question might already be: how many cars will you plow through before you stop? Maybe we should remove the foot from the accelerator and settle the tar in a braking position.
The cigarette companies did the same thing 30 years ago, for fun and profit. Statu quo is more likely to find sock puppets once again and should have the burden of the proof now.
You must be the kind of guy who runs red lights all the time. Those "the boy that cried wolf" should stop bugging you about drunk driving.
Burning coal is 18th century technology. Moving on to more efficient 21st century technologies may well be an advantage, not a disadvantage, and being early in adopting technologies that the rest of the world will move to could have significant advantages.
You may be right or not. So far it is only a wishful thinking. Coal is still the cheapest. When something else becomes cheaper then people and companies will gladly move to it.
No, in fact coal is relatively expensive even with subsidies. This is one of the main drivers for switching to renewables, so you got that part right -- except for the "gladly" part. People seem to be fighting renewables even though they're cheaper than fossil fuels. In order from cheapest energy to most expensive, the cheapest is geothermal (although it's not widely available), followed by hydroelectric (again, not available everywhere), followed by wind (same story), followed by natural gas, then coal. In fact, coal is nearly as expensive as nuclear right now -- interesting fact. Look it up yourself. https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/... In the meantime, quit posting things that are factually wrong. Of course, if you made electricity consumers pay for fixing the environmental damage that coal mining/burning costs I imagine it would be by far and away the most expensive.
Well, let me start by saying I'm not a climate scientist, but do have some hard science background which helps. Thanks for using something other than insults (but then you're not an AC, so generally more civilised...) I'd say you were just trying to throw random papers at me to see what sticks, but then the claim was that someone who doesn't believe in AGW finds what they see as a credible source with higher global averages, so fair enough. Briefly then; the first study isn't actually a contradiction (unless you try to extrapolate the best fit line outside of the data range, which doesn't work). The second paper I must say isn't even trying to hide bias, its setting out to prove something then finding sources that confirm, so looks like its cherry picking its data. Even after all that, with the (they admit) shaky +1C claimed for the mwp (which is ridiculously high) still isn't *quite* as high as current now, unfortunately. The third paper... +2.7C for the mwp compared to pre-industrial? Ok, that would be higher, I'm not going to comment on how credible that claim is, though, your point is made. Based on the overlays of temperature graphs of studies I've seen it seems to be a fairly ridiculous claim, mind. As I say, I'm not a climate scientist, nor affiliated with any group so there's no "here's the rebuttal" to throw at it.
To run your car analogy off the cliff...
Science is predicting a traffic jam on the highway, but it's over the horizon, so we can't see how bad it really is yet. We are in our car accelerating at the moment and we are debating whether to let off the gas or hit the brakes. Except the scientists haven't said anything about the fact that we might have converted to a flying car by the time we get to the jam and would be able to fly right over it. There is also the potential that we could get off on a side road and take a slightly longer route that ultimately saves the trip. We could theoretically also just leave the road and drive through the grass to avoid the jam even though it would be very hard on the car and be very uncomfortable.
The people demanding we slam on the brakes don't see anything other than the traffic jam. Those are the kinds of people that end up causing accidents by over braking way early and catching people by surprise.
Your car analogy is missing a couple key points. The problem is that the car hurtling toward the traffic jam has no brakes since we lack the technology to remove significant amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.* Also, the car is accellerating and will keep accellerating even if we took our foot off of the gas right now. That's because the quantity of CO2 in our atmosphere hasn't yet warmed up the planet as much as it eventually will. By "get off the road" are you suggesting colonizing other planets? Because we're definitely going to be stuck with this mess if we stay on Earth. Still think it's a good idea to keep business as usual?
*Don't even talk about trees. The CO2 they sequester is exactly the same quantity of CO2 that they release when they die and decompose. If trees were immortal and took up no space, they'd be great for sequestering CO2. Do you know what actually is great at sequestering CO2? Coal! Oil! Too bad we're burning them, huh?
If someone has to repeatedly tell you something, it is because you either do not understand what is being told to you or you don't believe it. If we have to tell you every other week that you'll be dead in 10 years, it's because every other week you just say "uh uhhhhh"!
That was if we did nothing. 25+ years ago we DID do many somethings and we see good results from it now. We got rid CFCs, PCBs, and a whole lot of other toxic products. We installed scrubbers on vehicles and exhaust stacks, and now the air in Chattanooga is no longer yellow and the house doesn't get stained brown. Acid rain is practically gone and the ozone layer has regenerated back to acceptable levels. Examples abound if you actually wanted to see them.
Know what I heard 25 years ago? That I'd have a flying car and people would have far superior IQs by now. -----You prove that wrong.
Was it the Koch Brothers who hired their own scientists to disprove AGW and it backfired on them?
Sorry, guy. You lose via semantics.
but it sounds very much to me as if Senator Whitehouse is calling "for criminal prosecution of climate change deniers".
"the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme."
He specified the denial SCHEME be prosecuted, not the deniers themselves. Now the bigger question is, WTF is a climate denial scheme?
Here in SoCal winters used to be colder around 20 to 25 years ago. You could not go outside without a jacket or at least a sweater. There was frost on the grass, on rooftops and my windshield used to ice up frequently. These last few years I can get away with wearing a t-shirt and shorts. My jackets and sweaters have been gathering dust in my closet as I have not needed them for years.
That is interesting because I thought deforestation was a big problem in Africa like it is in South America particularly Brazil.
What's the margin of error? Why do these 'scientists' always eliminate measurement and proxy model error before creating their forecasts?
Mann tried to create a forecast model from a single data point. That's not science - that's MAGIC.
In your analogy, what you are actually being told is that there might be a traffic jam, and the number of stopped cars might be between -200 and 400, therefore you need to abort your journey entirely, and go home until someone else allows you to travel forward again.
You make a valid argument. In my utility bills there is a fee for providing poor people with electricity and gas. I believe there is a similar fee on my cell phone bill.
Are you referring to the poor in the 3rd world? They have more kids because they have no social security. The idea is their children will support them financially in their old age. Plus if they own a farm or business they are free labor.
You lined up;
> Oil companies funding alarming information
against
> A scientist...leading to a conclusion that there is nothing going on to be alarmed about
Which one of these is describing AGW?
We in the West are going to be fine, sure we will probably end up paying more for food and water but that is nothing we can't handle. It is the 3rd world that will be hit the hardest, the ones who can least afford it, but then when have we ever cared about them?
Puto cabron
How do you service an AC? Most of the ACs here need some servicing.
and therefore untrustworthy. Next.
They have more kids because they have no social security.
Last I checked, social security is not at the top of the green agenda for mitigating climate change.
Well it does when a pebble strikes your condensor and leaks POISONOUS REFRIGERANT into the atmosphere.
You realize you can purge any R134A AC system and fill it with propane who no loss in performance or seal integrity??
Except when a pebble strikes your condenser and leaks HIGHLY FLAMMABLE REFRIGERANT into the hood of your car.
I am laughing and crying at the same time.
Well played sir.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
The people demanding we slam on the brakes don't see anything other than the traffic jam. Those are the kinds of people that end up causing accidents by over braking way early and catching people by surprise.
Yes, because clearly not using AC all the time, replacing your light bulbs with something more efficient and living a less resource consuming lifestyle is akin to slamming the brakes on the highway. Face it, you don't give a shit and you'd rather live as you do right now, wasting all the resources you do. But that doesn't mean living differently would endanger society. Or do you truly believe that "the others" think the sole path to take is giving up all of computers and modern society's development and go living in caves and eating berries and nuts?
Actually, just to answer myself and respond to some valid criticisms below, I shouldn't have said 'low carbon', a better description might have been 'less polluted', which would have included 'low carbon'. Politicians tend to fix on and sell one or very few things, they are value monists: http://plato.stanford.edu/entr... whereas it's probably more useful to use a basket of measures, be pluralistic.
On y va, qui mal y pense!
How do you service an AC? Most of the ACs here need some servicing.
You just put your lips together, and blow.
Very close together, as it turns out.
The result sounds like th-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-pt!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Ever since they switched from CFCs to HFA (c. 2008), I've had to stop using inhalers.
Get your physician to write you a paper prescription, fax it to Canada, and get back some real inhalers, eh? It's only here in the USA where they've outlawed medical use of HFC-134a. It can only have been done as a handout to Big Pharma; the same old drug with a new propellant is now a new drug which is patented. This was done specifically to crush the plethora of widely and cheaply available inhalers. Meanwhile, you can stroll down to the auto parts store and buy HFC-134a in cans, hook them up to your car with a leaky AC system and refill it, and not even be breaking the law. It's illegal to knowingly let the gas in your AC system into the atmosphere, but people do it every day because it's cheaper than having it evacuated at a shop.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sorry, dude. You need to get at least up to high school science level to understand this. More would be better.
Do you really think there's only 200 years of data contributing to our understanding of how climate works? You have a lot of catching up to do.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
This is where - from my POV - most people miss the point. Yes, climate changes over millenia. Yes, the Earth has been through worse catastrophies. But that all happened over _millions_ of years and caused thousands (millions?) of species to become extinct. Are you suggesting that everything is just fine on a geological scale, even though we're going to be in serious trouble in the next 50 to 100 years? Would you be ok justifying that to your children and their children? "the world's going to be screwed for your entire lives but don't worry, your children's children's children's...[10 minutes later] children will be just fine"
You lined up;
> Oil companies funding alarming information
against
> A scientist...leading to a conclusion that there is nothing going on to be alarmed about
Which one of these is describing AGW?
Again, in the reply you replied to, I didn't say that.
If I had to throw a stick, I'd say it would land near funded alarming information to encourage the purchase of alternative products and energy.
I could be irresponsible and crudely intelligent and deliver a line to others like "Show me the data where stock holders and executives of oil corporations have their hands dipped into the stock of alternative energy companies," but that would be crass and completely illogical. More logic - if you have massive amounts of stock in oil companies and a few .....hundred thousand.. shares of car manufacturers, why would you NOT use the blaming of global warming on oil/cars (let alone other uses of your fuel and their burners' manufacturing companies' products) trigger action to set up alternative identities, shell companies, middlemen, etc to profit no matter what happens? Really? Come on. These people are self-centered and want to win every battle, like every human male (and lots of females!); there is no way they are just resting and not taking advantage of future prospects. If I'm the first one to think of that idea.... well, there is no "if" on that. It's impossible. I'm just an intelligent person in the middle class who doesn't focus on my company stock holdings all day long. There is no way in hell I just thought of that. It's being done and has been done. I'm NOT challenging anyone to find proof of that because, if they could, they already would have. Someone will accidentally screw the handling of a single page document or "get bugged" and caught at some point. But I don't have proof, so I'm just full of it, right?
I'm not being an ass to you, just leaving the words for thought (and, heh, mostly non-thought by others).
Last I checked, social security is not at the top of the green agenda for mitigating climate change.
Nor should it have to be at the top. Social security is only a top concern if you're not very productive (e.g poor) and can't save enough for retirement.
Under our glorious capitalist system, we consider the poor to be responsible for their own plight, and we have no obligation to help them. Just like how we don't give a flying fudge about those lazy entitled unionized first world unskilled labor losing their jobs to globalization and automation. The Luddites were wrong! People will find new jobs! Stop blaming our rich who are our job creators! etc.
http://blogs.discovermagazine....
Sorry, but that's just not the case. The problem in that statistical analysis is that the "pause" only exists if you pick exactly the right data subsetset. Pick the wrong start year, and it vanishes. But when you have to select a specific data subset to show an effect, and the only reason to pick that data subset is that this is the one that shows the effect-- that's not signal; that's statistical noise. The noise in the measurement is about 0.2C; the run of 18 years (or whatever run you pick) is simply mathematically not long enough to derive a local slope with high enough precision to reject a 0.015/year rise..
The fact that the deniers don't have a well-defined null hypothesis is a significant part of the reason that scientists don't consider their work science. Here is a good null hypothesis: "greenhouse gasses added by humans to the atmosphere do not cause an increase in the average temperature". This null hypothesis thus states that the rise in temperature from 1960 to present is statistical fluctuation (or, due to natural random factors not known, which is equivalent.) But, random noise will go down as much as it goes up. But the upward trend is significant. The graph trends up, but never down.
So, the null hypothesis is statistically rejected.
Now, rejecting the null hypothesis does not necessarily mean that the rise is due to human effects: it means that the rise is real, but does not say what causes it. So, the "human produced gasses do not cause warming" argument needs a different explanation of the rise.
So far, that different explanation simply has not been found, although there have been many many people looking for it.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Under our glorious capitalist system, we consider the poor to be responsible for their own plight, and we have no obligation to help them.
It's worth noting that whatever the cause, there has been a huge decline in global extreme poverty. I believe capitalism, global trade, and use of fossil fuels deserve the lion's share of the credit for that. For example, in East Asia
Here's an amazing fact: The number of people in extreme poverty fell by 114 million from 2012 to 2013.
That is a simply massive one-year decline, and it's not even the biggest drop in recent years. From 2010 to 2011, global poverty fell by 132 million people. From 2008 to 2013, the number fell by an average of 88 million people per year. If that rate of progress keeps up, global poverty will be eliminated in less than a decade.
Spoiler: They don't expect the trend to continue because of Sub-Saharan Africa which is far less tractable than East Asia is.
The purple line representing East Asia shows the most striking trajectory. In 1990, a large majority â" 60.2 percent â" of people in the region lived in extreme poverty. In 2013, only 3.5 percent did. Thatâ(TM)s a shift of mind-boggling scale. And it means that extreme poverty in that area is now a rather small part of the overall global problem.
Of course, it's worth noting that China which has most of the population of the area introduced massive pro-capitalism and trade liberalizing reforms at the beginning of this period.
You can be as sarcastic as you'd like, but it doesn't change that the world is improving at an enormous rate due to the very systems you deride and the very fossil fuel use that is supposedly such a good idea to reduce. Yet as usual, we have a bunch of would-be environmentalists who remain ignorant of the most important improvement in the well-being of humanity in history.
Pride
>(3) What is the least/cheapest amount of work to keep humanity alive?
To exterminate >90% of the world population. But I'm not a big fan of this solution.
Nonsense -- the USA is only 4.35% of world population.
OBSF -- "The Sheep Look Up".
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Like the time when a friend of mine wanted a universal remote control?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Now, does anyone have a link to those charts which show the models continue to run much hotter than the real climate?
The IPCC's Fifth Assessment has it for you in Figure 11.9. They graph the instrumental record against an ensemble of 42 models and the instrumental consistently falls on the lowest end of the error margins for the predicted warming. IE, the very, very coldest models are the closest to matching the instrumental record.
Now, that is working from a short term prediction, which isn't where we expect the models to really start showing their promise, but the IPCC saw fit to print it regardless. You can compare the IPCC's first assessment from back in the 1990's, if you want a longer term prediction to compare against. The trouble is the IPCC back then hard referenced their predictions to the year 1975. Practice since then is to show anomaly against something like a 10 year average, so you don't cherry pick a particularly hot/cold year as your initial reference. IF you do use 1975 as the reference for the IPCC FAR predictions from 1990 though their predictions that come closest to the last 25 years are the ones using a CO2 sensitivity of 1.5C.
"...how Congress grilled him about whether his scientific methods are credible..."
How dare Congress question his methods before accepting the complete change in direction of the economy and obvious massive costs this will impose?
The only shocking thing here is that Congress actually did their job by verifying what he said.
oh i have post-graduate level understanding, I can assure you.
You allude to methods of ascertaining temperatures in the past that have huge margins of error outside the fractions of a degree over decades that is the current basis for claim to catastrophic climate change.
By the way, I won't deny that carbon pollution is very bad and we should stop it. I also won't deny increase in greenhouse effect. I will challenge the absurd extrapolations and doomsaying, however
2014 was measured as the warmest year later by 0.2K (?), with a tolerance of +/- 1K. Mathematically, that's fine. It means we don't have much confidence that 2014 was the warmest year ever, but it's the most likely candidate. Since we're talking about a statistical distribution of a continuous variable, the probability that it was exactly what it was announced as is some form of zero (it gets complicated here, and we have to use some more sophisticated analysis), but the probability density function peaks there.
Be very careful when saying that scientists did something that looks obviously wrong. It may in fact be wrong, since scientists often don't have a good feel for statistics, but the odds are that you don't understand why they're saying what they're saying.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Except the scientists haven't said anything about the fact that we might have converted to a flying car by the time we get to the jam and would be able to fly right over it.
What is this? Interplanetary travel?
There is also the potential that we could get off on a side road and take a slightly longer route that ultimately saves the trip.
The traffic jam is still happening, you would just be personally avoiding it. I guess this could be analogous to carbon credits.
We could theoretically also just leave the road and drive through the grass to avoid the jam even though it would be very hard on the car and be very uncomfortable.
Fact remains, there's still a traffic jam, however you choose to avoid it.
The people demanding we slam on the brakes don't see anything other than the traffic jam. Those are the kinds of people that end up causing accidents by over braking way early and catching people by surprise.
Slamming the brakes is indeed no solution, but maybe slowing down enough to be able to react to whatever emerges over the horizon? Otherwise you could be the one ending up surprised.
Maybe the car analogy is not proper here. The road might be more fitting, and currently we are driving on it using tank treads, seemingly oblivious to its is deterioration. When it breaks, it will have to be closed until fixed, and traffic halts indefinitely. Unless, of course, we have converted to flying cars by then.
Yes, regardless of anything we do to work around the traffic jam, it is still there. But it's a fucking traffic jam. Traffic jams generally don't kill everyone who gets stuck in them... They just are irritating, greatly slow progress, and waste resources. I believe a warmer climate is going to happen, but I believe it's not going to be catastrophic for all life on the planet as people insinuate to try to get their tax and spend projects funded.
If you want to use the tank tread analogy, tanks can pretty easily traverse terrain with no roads, just not as fast as on pavement. Your analogy is still falling apart faster than your pavement in the analogy.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Yes, tanks can go many places. The goal here is to keep the road drivable.
It's worth noting that whatever the cause, there has been a huge decline in global extreme poverty.
I was not and am not contesting that poverty hasn't decreased.
This subthread started with you arguing that many poor people in developing countries might not find a greener world a better world, and how the green agenda doesn't put them as a high priority.
I'm pointing out that under capitalism, they have no obligation to care about those poor people, or any other group that disagree on what a "better" world means. As I alluded previously, many first world unskilled labor don't find our capitalist globalized world to be "better".
That poverty has decreased despite disagreement actually supports my argument. Your poor people might disagree today, but they'll figure out how to find new jobs.
I believe capitalism, global trade, and use of fossil fuels deserve the lion's share of the credit for that.
Only capitalism deserves credit. Capitalism is the framework. Global trade and fossil fuels are particular implementations following that framework. In other words, the successful implementations are simply examples of why the framework deserves credit.
The thing with implementations is that they can and do change. The old implementation that used more first world unskilled labor and manufacturing certainly didn't last. Even within fossil fuels, how it was implemented a century or two ago isn't the same as how is is implemented today
You can be as sarcastic as you'd like, but it doesn't change that the world is improving at an enormous rate due to the very systems you deride
I'm not deriding the system. I'm embracing it, even the traits that people criticize it for having. I'm saying "yes, capitalist is all those things people don't like... and that's why it works". The green agenda is succeeding because it is being more capitalistic than the opposition (more money is put into lobbying, more money is put into research, more money is put into brainwashing^H educating the new generation about thinking green, etc)
I would actually say you're the one deriding capitalism, because in the link you provided, it suggested wealth redistribution to speed up eliminating poverty
The market isn't going to naturally effect that kind of reduction; it requires government intervention and, ideally, lots of redistribution. And when countries have tried that approach, it's worked. The report includes a case study on Tanzania, a country that has experienced remarkably fast growth from 2004 to 2014: about 6.5 percent per year, on average. Poverty has fallen substantially as well, from about 60 percent in 2007 to under 50 by 2012.
It also had a bit on slamming fossil fuel subsidies
It's not just the World Bank pointing this out. Economists Andy Sumner and Chris Hoy have estimated that redirecting public subsidies for fossil fuels alone could eliminate up to 70 percent of extreme poverty. Doing that in concert with lower military spending and higher taxes would do even more.
You know, if you deny AGW as you rob a bank, you're still likely to get convicted of the robbery. If you deliberately lie about something for financial gain, you're probably committing a crime, and it doesn't matter what you're lying about. So, someone who denies AGW while knowing it is happening (deliberately lying) to make more money is committing a criminal act. I'm not sure if it matters whether AGW is happening or not.
In the cases I know of, a corporation had research reports that were believed inside the company saying that AGW was happening, and therefore deliberately lied about it. Tobacco companies were liable because they knew tobacco caused health problems and said it didn't. Nobody was prosecuted for just saying tobacco didn't hurt anyone.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The term "denialist" is parallel with "Holocaust denialist". It refers to people who deny something without any reference to any evidence. A skeptic says "I'm not convinced yet." Someone who genuinely believes it isn't happening could just say so. The denialist starts with the premise that AGW isn't happening, and deals with all evidence for it by finding some way to claim the evidence isn't correct. The scientific community says it's happening, so the scientific community is corrupt and only saying that for political reasons. There's mountains of evidence that the planetary surface is warming, so the denialist looks through it for a small apparent contradiction and says that invalidates the evidence.
If this doesn't describe you, you're not a denialist. Calling it denialism doesn't interfere with science, because a denialist is someone who isn't gong to provide sound observations or arguments. Do you have a problem with scientists dismissing the contributions of astrology? Astrology is better than denialism, since it doesn't contradict as much of what we know to be true.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Carbon taxes don't have to take from the poor and give to the rich. It's all in how they're structured.
Carbon taxes would use the power of the marketplace to efficiently reduce CO2 emissions. If industry A finds it difficult to reduce emissions, it can pay taxes, while industry B finds it'c cheaper to cut CO2 emissions than to pay the taxes. Consumers shift from A's products to B's products according to their individual desires and resources. Individuals get to try apparently stupid solutions out, and if they work, get them into production without worrying if they don't qualify under subsection R, paragraph 13 as a CO2 reduction technology.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The earth has been experiencing "Global Warming" since the entire fucking planet was covered in ice between 750 and 580 million years ago, monkey boy.
Is the warming accelerating? Perhaps, but that's inevitable as the ice that has been melting for centuries has revealed (wait for it) DARK soil and rock which get heated quicker by the big gassy ball in the sky. You might notice something similar at snow skiing resorts on the spring.
Can we humans treat the earth better? Of course. Can we slow down global warming? Not terribly. Blaming mankind (who has only been on this planet for a gnats ass in time units) for something that has been happening for a bazillion years is conceited.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm not deriding the system. I'm embracing it, even the traits that people criticize it for having.
Maybe. Perhaps next time, you should say that instead of what you apparently originally posted.
I would actually say you're the one deriding capitalism, because in the link you provided, it suggested wealth redistribution to speed up eliminating poverty
I didn't link to the article for that reason and I routinely link to articles with which I don't wholly agree. But even so, how does that deride capitalism?
It also had a bit on slamming fossil fuel subsidies
Is that deriding capitalism either? And most fossil fuel subsidies, like most subsidies in general, are rather pointless.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Carbon taxes don't have to take from the poor and give to the rich. It's all in how they're structured.
Sorry, that's what we here in reality call "wrong".
No matter how you structure carbon taxes they will *always* end up being ultimately paid by the poor. Businesses pay no taxes, their customers do through higher prices.
Carbon taxes would use the power of the marketplace to efficiently reduce CO2 emissions.
Energy taxes and added costs are one of the most regressive forms of taxation upon and wealth-transfer from the poorest to the richest.
By raising energy prices you will cause some number of poor/elderly/disabled people to die. That is a fact. How many unnecessary deaths are you OK with in pursuit of your political/ideological goals? Do the ends justify the means?
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If it were true you have a "post-graduate level of understanding", I'd have thought you would have written your comment very differently.
What "absurd extrapolations and doomsaying" are you referring to?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Why is this film alarming? All of this information has been out there for a decade or more. To me it seems like an overly optimistic summary of the last decade.
If you're just now learning about this, you're 10 years behind.
The protagonist is portrayed as a martyr. Those who suffer persecution, who have their jobs threatened, their lives threatened are not scientists whose findings accord with man made climate change, but those who challenge it.
If the car in front of you is forced to brake suddenly and you cannot stop in time to avoid it completely, you are guilty of follow that car too closely. It's not only you but also the vast majority of all drivers are conditioned to follow so closely that they cannot avoid this scenario when they drive according to their normal habit.
The proper way to drive is to maintain the proper crash avoidance space in front of you. Most people hate driving so much that when they see a crash avoidance space in front of you, they are compelled to fill a good crash avoidance space in with their own car, and thus leaving no crash avoidance space for themselves.
Is it alarming because it shows how global warming (FTFY) is real, or because it shows how global warming is not real?
I mean, it could go either way.
Oh. DiCaprio. Never mind.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Why do you think Canada is not civilised enough??
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
To repeat myself, carbon taxes don't have to take from the poor and give to the rich. We can structure them to be revenue-neutral and compensate for the regressivity in other ways. Maybe we substitute them for the low part of the FICA taxes and adjust welfare payments. Maybe we supply some compensatory income. There's ways to do these things, and ways to structure the tax system to account for regressive taxation.
You are technically correct in saying businesses don't pay taxes, I suppose, but the money also comes from the shareholders,
A business is making and selling widgets for $10. Now, the cost of making widgets goes up $1 due to the carbon tax. If the business could say "Carbon tax!" and raise its price to $11 and not lose sales, it would be passing the cost onto the customers. However, the business will make fewer sales at $11 rather than $10, so its profits go down. It will wind up at a price between $10 and $11, so customers do pay more, but shareholders receive less.
By allowing rising healthcare costs, you will cause some number of poor/elderly/disabled people to die. By allowing atmospheric CO2 levels to rise, you will cause some number of people to die and suffer. Any government decision, will cause some number of people to die or suffer. You're counting the costs of things you don't like, after exaggerating them, and ignoring the costs of things you like.
My ideology here is making life better for lots of individuals. My methods include paying attention to the best scientific projections available, and trying to get policy tailored around that, rather than any sort of ideology that carries its own "facts" with it. My politics are supporting people I think likely to do good for people, and that includes doing something about global warming.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The earth's biological productivity is rising rapidly (14% in 30 years) mainly due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere reports Matt Ridley in a Royal Society video with a transcript. Environmentalists may hate it, but it looks like good science to me. See it quicker (19 minutes), less political, and 3 years ago or for busy folk, in Snippets: (2 min) and (20 sec).
http://www.steynonline.com/6555/michael-e-mann-repudiates-his-own-hockey-stick
Who cares what evidence "you have seen"? The answers are there, but you are not looking for answers. You're looking for information to confirm your bias; there is a difference, troll.
I am going to let go of a rock in my hand. Wait, what will happen to the rock? It is unknowable. Science just can't tell me what will happen to that rock after I let go, because the future is unknowable.
Most would think the rock will drop. But to those twisting themselves into knots about it, anything could happen, I guess. It's just all so unknowable.
I am going to let go of a rock in my hand. Wait, what will happen to the rock? It is unknowable. Science just can't tell me what will happen to that rock after I let go, because the future is unknowable. Most would think the rock will drop. But to those twisting themselves into knots about it, anything could happen, I guess. It's just all so unknowable. We should just throw our hands up in the air based on your expert knowledge... denialist.
You're also ignoring the other major combustion product, H2O, which is not a pollution product (I don't consider CO2 a pollutant either, but YMMV). The approximate equation (from Wikipedia) is:
12 12 O2 + C8H18 8 CO2 + 9 H2O
Approx in part because gasoline isn't entire octane, and because there are other biproducts, mostly taken care of in her catalytic converter. Also, if I'd used a fraction in such an equation in chem class, I would have gotten points off, but I guess the point is still clear.
needing CO2 is not the same as "needing more co2".
the time scale of reaching 140ppm was in the millions of years.
it's not we were in a time crunch.
the earth was sitting at ~280ppm for several million years already.
and still vastly different from cranking it back up to dinosaur era levels in a mere 200 years.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
and where does the energy come from to melt the tin and compress the hydrogen gas?
hydrogen economies have been explored.
the problem is the amount of energy expenditure required to begin the process.
not defending oil, but that's one of oil's strengths, is that initial energy input (compressing rotting prehistoric flora and fauna) has basically already occurred, and extraction of the oil require very little additional energy input compared to the amount of oil (and thus energy output) reaped. that's a big reason for oils prevalence.
most renewable techs (solar wind) have a rather higher initial energy investment, specifically in creating the generators/panels, but not as high the hydrogen economy. they could already under current conditions become self-sustaining and perpetuating as oil has done.
the hydrogen economy in contrast, depending on the analysis, has required input as larger or larger than the output gained. molten tin is more promising than most, but its still nowhere near practical as a self-sustaining replacement.
fallacy doesn't mean wrong.
if Bob's Deli repeatedly serves you a turd sandwich when you asked for ham, at what point do you stop expecting ham, and start expecting turd when you go to Bob's?
same goes for misinformation and lies when you expected facts and logic, after repeated visits to Brietbart's Land of the Alt Right.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
yes.
specifically to mercenary outfits who deliver what you pay for, rather than actual research.
worker's paradise is a euphemism for communistic hell hole country, so that would be Venezuela..
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds