Slashdot Mirror
US Scientists Scramble To Protect Research On Climate Change (cnn.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader ClickOnThis quotes CNN:
Some scientists and academics are embarking on a frenzied mission to archive reams of scientific data on climate change, energized by a concern that a Trump administration could seek to wipe government websites of hard-earned research... The chief concern: publicly available climate change data and research found on government websites would be wiped clean or made otherwise inaccessible to the public. Some worry the information could only be retrieved with a taxing Freedom of Information Act request.
One associate professor at the University of Texas tells CNN, "There is a very short window for when the new administration will come in and that's why there's a lot of anxiety. There's a lot of information to save."
One associate professor at the University of Texas tells CNN, "There is a very short window for when the new administration will come in and that's why there's a lot of anxiety. There's a lot of information to save."
Hillary wasn't elected, what's the worry?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
All they need to do is make a deal with archive.org to take the materials off their hands in a deal which doesn't involve a robots.txt file, as a special collection. This is precisely what the internet archive is for...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Oh yes, those Hollywood movie stars and all their money putting the poor old entire traditional energy industry out :( Oh, if only oil companies could afford lobbyists just like Hollywood actors all have!
"Some scientists and academics are embarking on a frenzied mission to archive reams of scientific data on climate change"
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit will be happy; in the past he's had endless struggles trying to get data from climate scientists.
The true measure of scientific fact is how well it survives the opposition trying to disprove it. Given that the opposition to climate change has given up on producing data disproving that the Earth is getting warmer on aggregate and instead resorted to attacking it politically, I would say it's doing pretty well as scientific theories go.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
..public information if it is being used to justify legislation.
we saw that data was being falsified in advance of a vote to establish an international agreement on carbon taxes during the climategate scandal, by interests positioned to profit from the creation of a carbon tax credits trading exchange (who funded the falsification).
I don't think this is a Trump issue, but a general issue, and while there's so much FUD going about, at least it's bringing attention to the problems inherent in the climate change issue.
That's cute. A "legitimate dispute" where one participant is willing to destroy all the evidence of the other's argument, just to win. Not to be correct, not to have a debate, just to win. Billions of dollars of research being flushed down the drain, research that could save billions of lives in a few decades when the effects of global warming become more severe.
That isn't a "legitimate dispute," any more than it was a "legitimate dispute" to burn books you didn't agree with. That is one idiot proclaiming to the world that his belief is more important than your evidence.
I wouldn't doubt you voted for the cocksucker, you should be on a terrorism watch list for doing that to your country.
Motivations aside, remember when the climate skeptics said, "Make the raw data public so we can analyze it!" and actual government agencies, supposedly working for the public were like, "nooooooooooo. You wouldn't understand it the right way, so we can't do that! We only show it to certain people that we've pre-vetted to ensure that they think like us. We'll release these summarized graphs that prove our point!"
Yeah, ignore the fact that the whole of science actually works when people share their ideas and findings, and in this case, it's not like they were protecting monetized corporate secrets or anything. There was really nothing stopping them from widely distributing this data, and not in fits and bursts and rollups rather than raw.
Well, good going, now you've screwed. I hope you choke on the fruits of your labor, it's what you deserve from so highly politicizing your science.
Then list these legitimate criticisms. And no, someone's blog or a WSJ article is not legitimate criticism.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Hollywood movie stars are great propaganda for the whipping up support among the unwashed, unthinking masses; that's why political leaders and Scientologists have always sought public association with them.
The chief concern: publicly available climate change data and research found on government websites would be wiped clean or made otherwise inaccessible to the public.
There is no reason to believe this will happen. It's FUD, fake news, whatever you prefer to call it.
I do think there is a legitimate problem with our climate and that us humans are more than capable of influencing it for good or for worse even if it was an entirely natural cycle, if nothing else we should be able to ensure our survival.
The problem I see is indeed the politicized parts of it. We are donating large swaths of money in the form of carbon credits to the very nations that should be improving their situation, but instead we export our "dirty air" and allow them to make it worse even though Chinese smog particles are now affecting coastal cities in the US. In the end it's just a taxation to offset debts and improve their economy and when it comes time for "them" to pay up they'll just back out of whatever agreement they signed, just like Trump wants to do.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Well, if you insist on burying your head in the political sands, then I suppose that would be your interpretation of what's going on. "Deniers" (nice little marketing associating with the Holocaust) have produced and are still producing peer-reviewed scientific work; it's not their fault if you choose to disregard their work.
The true measure of scientific fact is how well it survives the opposition trying to disprove it. Given that the opposition to climate change has given up on producing data disproving that the Earth is getting warmer on aggregate and instead resorted to attacking it politically, I would say it's doing pretty well as scientific theories go.
Nah, it's an intractable problem because there is only one earth. Better to burn all the research to the ground and call it a day. Strangely enough trump petitioned scottland for variances to account for rising sea levels on his golf course there. But he wouldn't say one thing and believe/do another would he?
"Deniers" ... are still producing peer-reviewed scientific work; it's not their fault if you choose to disregard their work.
For example?
It is not that politicians would use religious institutions to look for unwashed unthinking masses to whip up support.
Bert
there's tons of raw data out there. I see folks on /. periodically doing their armchair analysis of some of it. And anyway, if they were just holding on to the data because they were nefarious scientists (probably just sucking on that sweet sweet grant money) than why would they care if it got preserved? If they were never going to give it up anyway what difference does it make if it's saved?
See, this is one of those things I always thought was funny. You've got a bunch of folks with PHds, usually with a heavy emphasis on math and statistics, but the implication I get again and again from folks is that they're somehow trying to cheat us all for the mountains of grant money.
These folks are in ridiculously high demand in the private sector. They command salaries 2-3x the public sector at the drop of a hat (and if they go to Wallstreet 5-10x). I'm not saying there won't be the occasional bad apple or just plain wrong person, but really, if they were out for personal gain they have much, much better alternatives and they're smart enough to know what they are.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Summary title: "US Scientists Scramble To Protect Research On Climate Change"
From TFA:
at schools like the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Toronto, academics are attempting to download and save as much data as possible. The Canadian school on Saturday is set to host a "guerilla archiving event" in collaboration with the Internet Archive's End of Term 2016 project, which will archive the federal online pages and data that are in danger of disappearing during the Trump administration, including climate change, water, air and toxics programs.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Cute. When was there a scientific consensus that the world was flat? Oh, that's right. There never was. The scientific method as we currently understand it originated with people like Galileo, Bacon, and Newton in the late 16th and early 17th century. And there has been overwhelming expert consensus that the Earth is spherical since around 350 BC. Plato, Archimedes, and Eratosthenes all developed ways to measure the diameter of the earth. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your argument that there is legitimate dispute about the scientific basis of climate change.
Release ALL OF IT as a torrent and encourage people around the globe to download it.
Honestly all this shit needs to be in the hands of regular people and not sequestered away for only the chosen to look at.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Long story short, my father-in-law was asked why he didn't believe in human caused global warming and after listening to 20 minutes of him spouting the same old talking points that we have all heard many times before, it came down to other people's money. Having to fork over money to other countries to help them cope with global warming.
That's it. What it comes down to is that folks are afraid that their standard of living will decline. They will lose.
I have some horrible news - our standard of living is guaranteed to go down.
What has always happened when climate changes drastically is that arable land and fresh water declines dramatically and even disappears in some areas. And what do the people do? They migrate. Where to? Where there is fresh water, arable land and other resources - or even dry land.
Unfortunately for them, there are always other people there. And what do humans do? They don't share because it means that the people who are already there have to lower their living standards to share the food, water and land.
WAR. And wars are the most expensive things on Earth. Loss of money, life, property, freedom, .... I think it's better to help other cope than deal with mass migrations or better yet, stop the problem itself - but getting people to give up their big cars, burgers and steaks and live more environmentally friendly is too much to ask.
So, if anyone thinks that by denying Global Warming or keep clinging to the hope that it's not true will accomplish nothing.
You, me and most of us are going to lose.
Our way of life is over unless we can stop global warming.
It's locally flat.
Leave aside the eminent people you mentioned. What do you think Joe Sixpack thought? It stands to reason that if the Earth was round all the sea would fall off...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I do think there is a legitimate problem with our climate and that us humans are more than capable of influencing it for good or for worse even if it was an entirely natural cycle, if nothing else we should be able to ensure our survival.
The problem I see is indeed the politicized parts of it. We are donating large swaths of money in the form of carbon credits to the very nations that should be improving their situation, but instead we export our "dirty air" and allow them to make it worse even though Chinese smog particles are now affecting coastal cities in the US. In the end it's just a taxation to offset debts and improve their economy and when it comes time for "them" to pay up they'll just back out of whatever agreement they signed, just like Trump wants to do.
The United States with 318 million citizens produces something like 16% of global greenhouse gas emissions with an upward trend that is set to become even sharper now that Trump is president, persecuting climate scientists and promoting fossil fuels process that looks set to continue for the next eight years since there is little reason to believe that Trump won't be re-elected. The EU 28 with 508 million citizens manages to produce 10% of Greenhouse gas emissions with a downward trend. Pundits in the US likes to blame China for emissions and makes the case that China is a bigger emissions sinner than the US and that people should stop unfairly picking on the US which ignores the fact that China emits less per capita than the US. This is not to say that China should be exempt form emissions reduction but it is worth keeping in mind, when American Conservatives start whining about China's emissions and how the US is being treated unfairly by people demanding a decrease in US emissions, that compared to Europe the US should be producing about 6% of Global emissions in stead of 16%. The way I see Trump, Tillerson the entire US coal and oil lobby, Putin, Rosneft and the rest of the Trump administration's buddies in Moscow the Gulf states and the rest of OPEC is the they diehard holdouts of a dying energy industry. People can go on endlessly about nuclear which is alway going to be a leper in any discussion about energy production reform and they can pin their hopes on fusion but the countries that will dominate the energy production in the future are those that are working on renewables and perfecting related technologies (unless fusion finally pans out after being just around the corner for half a century).
I think they need two build an ark before the great flood comes..
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
If you want to see the oppositions disproval, then you Need to fund their research equally, just like the researchers received the massive funding for their work who actually started off with assumption that greenhouse-gas-caused climate change exists and is caused by humans.
The ones who assume work doesn't prove the foundation of their research is true though,
they just further developed the theory, which doesn't receive adequate funding for critical truth analysis.
Threatening the messenger is now how science is done:
[ https://www.washingtonpost.com... ]
And when your department gets sacked, and the data storage defunded, what good does that USB drive (neglecting the fact that it may be petabytes) do in your garage?
Billions of dollars of research being flushed down the drain, research that could save billions of lives in a few decades when the effects of global warming become more severe.
If the research is that important, then publish it and get libraries and other 3rd parties archiving it after the data is collected ---
this is also a good thing as it means observation datasets can no longer be tampered with in the future to support new models.
I doubt that Trump's team is going to say "delete the research data", anyways.
They're just de-funding the continuation of the research, and data ought to be archived.
It does.
The backups are however not free, and stored in government property.
If the funding for those goes away, then at some point, it gets deleted.
Except you know archiving the data costs money too.
"Deniers" ... are still producing peer-reviewed scientific work; it's not their fault if you choose to disregard their work.
For example?
I'm personally waiting to see all the climate model source code - and RAW data.
ALL OF IT. With every change made over time.
If it's science, it can withstand the scrutiny.
If it can't stand up to that scrutiny, it's not science.
Ever look at hurricane predictions? Where the predicted path is published for a bunch of different hurricane models? Most of the time, they mostly agree pretty closely. But every now and then, there's a huge outlier or two where the predicted path from one hurricane model differs drastically from all the others.
That's the nature of modeling.
BUT WHERE THE HELL ARE ANY CLIMATE MODEL OUTLIERS?!?!?!
That's certainly moving the goalposts. Now it's "warmer on aggregate". Before it was droughts, floods, hurricanes, no arctic ice, no snow in England or New York, mass extinctions, 100 meter sea level rise, mass starvation worldwide, point of no return, end of the world.
Next time stick with "somewhat warmer on aggregate" and keep things scientific -- rather than dividing people into tribes to fight each other so leaders can gain power and wealth.
TLDR: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is a quotation from the c.â1600 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. It has been used as a figure of speech, in various phrasings, to describe someone's overly frequent and vehement attempts to convince others of some matter of which the opposite is true, thereby making themselves appear defensive and insincere.[not verified in body] In rhetorical terms, the phrase can be thought of as indicating an unintentional apophasisâ"where the speaker who "protests too much" in favor of some assertion puts into others' minds the idea that the assertion is false, something that they may not have considered before."
You are free to install your own sensors world wide and start capturing data. Maybe in 50 years you will be able to calculate a trend.
The fact that you didn't do it doesn't mean climate change isn't happening.
Don't confuse the religious bigotry and superstition of the 15th century with the scientific method of today, please.
Although unfortunately religious bigotry and superstition does seem to be making a comeback in conservative circles of, how ironic, the country that was the scientific motor of the 20th century.
ExxonMobil already did some comprehensive, high quality research on climate change in the 1970s. They discovered AGW but decided to bury their research and go about a campaign to discredit anyone who made similar findings. Or perhaps you haven't been following the news lately?
That's what I am thinking too...often, "archiving" data means backing it up and putting the physical media some place that is secure and inaccessible in case of some disaster recovery scenario or to remove old, unused data from the more-often accessed systems to lighten the load on the infrastructure. They shouldn't be "archiving" it, they should be "replicating it" to various cross-border systems that are outside the control of the centralized US government.
If you want to see the oppositions disproval, then you Need to fund their research equally, just like the researchers received the massive funding for their work who actually started off with assumption that greenhouse-gas-caused climate change exists and is caused by humans.
The ones who assume work doesn't prove the foundation of their research is true though, they just further developed the theory, which doesn't receive adequate funding for critical truth analysis.
LOL. For any scientist, disproving an established theory is a dream come true. This is the stuff to make careers. And it's not as if people haven't tried. Former climate sceptic Richard Muller got funded by the Koch brothers, and, with his team, did a completely independent reconstruction of the temperature record of the last. Of course, he came up with essentially the same results NASA, NOAA, and the HadCRUT team had previously found, and, as a good scientist, changed his position in response to the data.
Of course, we don't fund science by desired result, but by the importance of the questions asked and the plausibility that progress towards an answer can be made. Assuming equal quality of grant applications, if 97% of working scientist hold one broad position, you would expect 97% of funding to go to this group. And, from what I have seen of so-called "sceptic" science, "equal quality" would be a long stretch...
Stephan
Widespread "Consensus" is not the measure of scientific fact; if it were, we'd all still believe that the Earth is flat, etc.
True but widespread consensus amongst scientists working on the problem has historically been shown to be the absolute best indication of scientific fact. When the ancient greek philosophers first suggested that the world was a sphere and then managed to measure its radius the population listened, learnt and based on the scientific consensus changed their mind. So the exact reverse is true: had there been an ancient greek Donaldus Trumpus opposing the idea that the world was a sphere we might still believe that the world was flat (although probably not because at some point the evidence is just too overwhelming).
The problem with global warming being caused by green house gas emissions is that there is a huge impact on the economy from doing something about it. Hence the debate now is really a political one about what should we do about it. Those who stand to lose financially want to do nothing and just deal with the issues of rising temperatures. However they know that people will not go for this if they know we are causing global warming so the only way they can achieve the goal of doing nothing is to deny the science motivating action. I don't for a second believe that Mr. Trump and his friends really disbelieve in global warming, it's just the only argument they have to achieve their goal.
They should send all their data to Wikileaks, or otherwise put it somewhere on the public Internet not hosted on a U.S.-based server, then let the general Internet public know it's there so it can all be copied and diseminated widely and freely. We all know that once you post something on the Internet it's never, ever going completely away, and I believe this is their best strategy to preserve and protect the products of their research. Between that data being released and data from scientists in other countries, climate change research should be safe.
I'd also like to point out that if the Trump administration actually did literally destroy the data from climate change research, in my opinion that would be roughly equivalent to burning books -- and I'm morally offended by the idea -- and I don't get 'morally offended' very easily or very often; this is one of those deal-breakers for me.
Sadly, you are very wrong. One of the biggest problems ot the scientific fields of today is precisely that debunking existing theories achieves literally nothing for the people doing the debunking.
Scientist careers today live and die by citations - how often their published work is cited by others. The problem is that published works that debunk an existing theory get cited several orders of magnitute LESS than the work they are trying to debunk. Worse yet, among people who actually read the "works of disproval", the majority only slightly change their opinion of the work being criticized.
So no, in the current environment it is highly improfitable and illogical for a scientist to engage in anything but original work (or work that at least looks original).
"Debunking" is a very soft term. But if you look e.g. at "Unidentified curved bacilli on gastric epithelium in active chronic gastritis" (by Warren and Marshall), which identified a bacterial cause for most peptic ulcers, and followup-paper "Prospective double-blind trial of duodenal ulcer relapse after eradication of Campylobacter pylori", "debunking" the prevailing theory that fatty diets and stress are the primary causes of ulcers, they received over 4000 and over 1000 citations, respectively. That is more than many scientists collect in a lifetime.
Or, too look more closely, "Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years" by Soon and Baliunas received 190 citations, despite being utter crap. That's apparently more than any other paper by Willie Soon, and in particular more than any of the papers on astrophysics he ever wrote.
Stephan
And there's where climate 'activist' are just idiots. They think an emotional appeal somehow countermands the need for people who question a controversial scientific subject with a snide comment on social media. Contrary to those 'the debate is settled' ass holes there is no such thing as a settled scientific debate that can never be questioned. That's not science. That's called a religion.
Does anyone know if torrents are being set up for replication?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
If you want to see the oppositions disproval, then you Need to fund their research equally, just like the researchers received the massive funding for their work who actually started off with assumption that greenhouse-gas-caused climate change exists and is caused by humans.
That sounds fair until you rephrase it as giving equal funding to those who accept over 100 years of accumulated scientific research and those who think that it is all wrong. You would have to make a pretty compelling case of why you think that way if you wanted to be taken seriously when making a proposal for a new study.
The problem is that science doesn't work like an internet troll. Just because you make an assumption doesn't mean that you have to stick with it in the conclusions of your paper. In fact, you would be far more likely to get your paper cited by others (a metric used by some to determine the worth of a published work) if you can prove your own assumptions to be wrong. For example, you might make a study that poses: "Assuming X, then in theory Y must be true - so let's see if that is the case". If you find that Y is not true, then you can conclude that there is the need for more studies to find whether the theory of Y is false or the assumption of X is false. And more studies means more grants, so the financial imperative is not to follow the company line but actually to be controversial.
That is why this notion of equal funding is unnecessary. It also makes no difference, as the Koch brothers found when they funded (in part) a study that ended up agreeing with the scientific consensus. And boy, did the deniers suddenly turn against Richard Muller, who they thought was their "tame scientist"!
Arabs didn't exist 2000 years ago. They weren't invented until the 7th century.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Scientific theories need to be proven as true before anyone can try to disprove them.
I suggest you take a look at the Steps of the Scientific Method: http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
Which step is the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) on?
Widespread "Consensus" is not the measure of scientific fact; if it were, we'd all still believe that the Earth is flat, etc.
Let's put this idiotic meme to bed once and for all.
(1) There has never been a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat.
The consensus among natural philosophers since the time of Aristotle (4th century BC) has been that the Earth is spherical. In the third century BC Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth as 252,000 stadia, which works out to 39,838 km. The modern figure for the circumference of the Earth is 40,030 km. Since Eratosthenes was dealing in round numbers, he had an accurate figure that is merely less precise than the modern figure. The Portuguese had a more accurate figure for the size of the Earth, which is why they rejected Columbus's expedition which was based on an estimate that was 1/3 too small.
In medieval universities astronomy was one of the "liberal arts", and the standard texts considered the Earth spherical. The "flat earth" notion was only widely held by the ignorant.
(2) Scientific consensus is not about eternal truth, it is about who currently bears the burden of proof.
Science is unique in that it admits, even depends upon crackpot ideas, but it imposes a high burden of proof on them. On the other hand it imposes a low burden of proof on ideas that have a long history of standing up to scrutiny.
This is discrimination, but it's not unfair discrimination. It's a system that allows those crackpot ideas a shot at becoming a new scientific consensus, without burdening everyone else with endless recapitulation of the evidence for things that currently enjoy the support of overwhelming evidence.
When evidence supports a change in the scientific consensus, it changes very rapidly. Take the Heliocentric theory. Copernicus's model had a number of shortcomings, but after the work of Tycho Brahe and Kepler it rapidly gained support among professional astronomers. The main opposition to heliocentrism was political -- not actually religious. The Pope was a Renaissance humanist and an admirer of Galileo; but he had a problem with the Spanish cardinals and couldn't afford to appear "soft on heresy". It's a familiar problem to us today.
3) The existence of scientific dissent does not somehow make an idea more credible.
Dissent, even crackpottery, is not only inevitable, it is an important feature of science that even crackpots are allowed to participate. It doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what you can prove. So if your critieria of evidence is scientific unanimity, you won't get it on just about any topic. Not even conservation of momentum. Everything is open to debate. Even "real" debate.
This means that if you take the "some scientists disagree" route you can go scientist shopping for whatever position you want. Science would have no value whatsoever if we used it that way. You can of course cite dissident scientists if you want of course, but their dissent in itself isn't proof of anything. You have to drill down to why they believe what they believe and why you believe that is correct. People who rely on the scientific consensus within a field need only rely upon the fact that it *is* the scientific consensus.
This reflects the same asymmetrical burden of proof that happens within science. One side is making an extraordinary (in scientific terms) claim and needs equally compelling evidence. The other is making a non-controversial claim.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
And there's where climate 'activist' are just idiots. They think an emotional appeal somehow countermands the need for people who question a controversial scientific subject with a snide comment on social media. Contrary to those 'the debate is settled' ass holes there is no such thing as a settled scientific debate that can never be questioned. That's not science. That's called a religion.
Yeah, it's not like evolution, gravity, or the shape of the planet is settled. There's no point in making decisions about life and determining public policy on those three items because just because there's "only" a consensus, because who knows, the science may change on the (e.g.) shape of our planet. NASA should stop following the Hollywood actors saying the earth is spherical and keep studying things to make sure the supposed reality doesn't change. /s
Seriously: there are two possibilities
a) humans are the cause of climate change
b) humans do NOT cause climate change
What's the worst that can happen if we assume (a) and are wrong? We become more efficient at using energy and diversity our energy sources. What's so bad about?
What's the worst that can happen if assume (b), and do nothing? A whole lot of pain and suffering for millions of people.
So from a risk perspective, why not side with the 95% of climate scientists and start planning for the worst? If the science is wrong we still get a bunch of good benefits.
As a best practice, try to not install these sensors over top of air conditioning exhausts or in the middle small asphalt parking lots at the edge of huge national forests. Also, when that 50 years is up, please don't claim that the oldest data needs to be adjusted (to suit your needs as an alarmist) because "obviously anything that old isn't gonna be accurate."
Which is why the Founders enshrined the right to keep and bear arms.
It's hard to fuck with people when they've got weapons.
It's too bad that there's no massive network of interconnected computers that researchers could have release all their research in all sciences over the past 20+ years openly for all of mankind to benefit from instead of having to keep it at the mercy of scientific journals. If something like that existed then it would basically be impossible to censor as it would spread and be archived all over the world. Oh well, back on the internet to watch cat videos.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Are you saying some greater purpose is being served by not releasing all data and methodology on climate change?
I'm saying that the greater purpose of bringing up this different topic was to draw attention away from this claim:
Someone asked for an example of this peer-reviewed scientific work and all we got was an off-topic rant about seeing the raw temperature data. That was not the example that was requested which would prove the original assertion. I believe that the only reason why this irrelevant and sudden change of subject was posted here was because the alternative would be to admit that deniers aren't producing anything remotely like science. The original statement was a lie, and this business of climate model source code is just your attempt to distract us from the original question.
It is the usual denier tactic of rapidly switching to the next bullet point on their favorite denier website the moment anyone picks a hole in their crazy theories, or indeed actually answers their question. I have no doubt that if I posted a link to the raw data that you think is so important that you would quickly jump to the next prepackaged denier post.
May I suggest for the next leap in the discussion that we haven't see the old "they have fogotten about about the sun" line for a while. It's a shame that you can't point to 1998 anymore to "prove" that the climate is actually getting colder; that was always a good one. Don't you think that being a denier would be so much easier if it just would stop getting hotter?
Not only are there legitimate criticisms about the interpretations of measurements, but even of the measurements themselves. Prior to the 1920s, most stations around the world providing temperature measurements weren't staffed with trained personnel recording the data. In many cases, the measurements weren't taken at any regular intervals, but rather when someone had free time in between performing other work to do so. In fact, it was often a janitor or other completely untrained staff member recording temperatures because it wasn't viewed as a critical task and being with a degree or two was good enough. This began to change around the 1920s and 30s, especially as radio and television began to take hold and the sciences around climate and weather began to develop.
Accurate instruments didn't even become available until the late 1800s, so any direct measurements taken prior 'til then are highly suspect regardless of who was in charge of taking them. This makes most of the direct measurements prior to ~1930 extremely limited and any direct measurements prior to ~1880 just about utterly useless. It isn't until the 1960s that you really start getting measurements useful to a discussion about 1C of variability in climate worldwide. Earlier climate data is even worse, as that primarily comes from proxy measurements. Two problems there: 1) the proxies lack the precision to be useful in a discussion of 2-3C of climate variation and 2) the proxies don't agree with one another, nor do any of them agree with direct measurements.
Statistical smoothing is used to work around this, and that's where we get into what you stated about problems with interpretations of the measurements and the way in which mathematical principles are applied. You can blur your way out of very minor errors and largely leave the data intact, but you can't do so when your error bars are orders of magnitude greater than the trend you're seeking. At that point, by the time you've blurred away the errors, any reliable data hidden in there has long since been turned to mush.
None of this is to say we shouldn't be working hard on climate science. Rather, it's to say we need to do better work on the subject and stop pretending we understand our world's climate or its history. None of this is to say we shouldn't be working hard on shifting from technologies that pollute and poison our environment to cleaner and better technologies. Rather, it's to say we shouldn't jump to absurd doomsday conclusions and take radical actions like geo-engineering "solutions" to problems we can't yet say for certain even exist.
Good science is honest about its faults; about what it does know, what it should know, and what it can't know. Good science starts with good data, strict methodology, open presentation of work for review, and the ability to accept valid criticism. Unfortunately, climate science has been tribalized into an "us vs them" situation unlike virtually any other science. There are great debates in science about the validity of things like string theory, quantum loop gravity, etc, but those arguments are based on the underlying math and how well it explains what we've actually observed thus far in our universe. The debate around climate science is mostly crap. It's two sides screaming "WE'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG!" at each other. I'm not surprised that there's a group that will always refuse to believe humans have any impact on the climate of our world because we have a group (and it's largely the same group) that refuses to believe evolution is a real thing despite the fact that we can observe it happening in front of us. No, what surprises (and saddens) me is that there's a group that believes in AGW with a religious fervor on par with the worst of the zealots. Questioning the data or the science behind their dogmatic beliefs is an attack on their very being, and they respond by spewing hate. It's unfortunate, because there are extremely important questions to answer and there needs to be real work done on answering them rather than merely confirming beliefs.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
The data for reproducing climate model predictions and published research already should be fully released, and as a practical matter, archived. Here is a set of links:
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
So what is this other data that they are trying to rescue from Trump?
If there is data missing, then that should be published. The climate research community might also want to update their computational tools from the dusty Fortran decks to something more modern. Everybody should be able to reproduce climate models on a modern desktop computer with a GPU and check for themselves.
Really?
In a section titled “Patterns of Immigration,” a speech bubble pointing to a U.S. map read: “The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.
"This is erasure,” Dean-Burren said in an interview with The Washington Post. “This is revisionist history — retelling the story however the winners would like it told.”
In calling slaves “workers” and their move to the United States “immigration,” she noted in viral Facebook posts Wednesday and Thursday, the textbook suggests not only that her African American ancestors arrived on the continent willingly, but also that they were compensated for their labor.
If you lived in Texas, which I do, you'd be aware of the right wing Evangelical Christian batshit crazy supremacist white trash bitches like former governor Rick Perry.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
That's not science. That's called a religion.
Galileo vs. the Pope
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
"The opposition" isn't getting any funding to produce opposing research.
The political attacks are about policy, not science. Personally, I don't care whether the average global temperatures will be a few degrees higher in 2100.
But disproving an establish theory is real science, and real science has no place in this debate! All we need is Al Gore.
97%? You must mean 97% of a cherry picked group of 74 people, quite a few of whom lack actual backgrounds in climate or meteorological science.
Well, there are several sources for the ca. 97%, but they seem to have been too conservative (in the non-political sense of the term). The latest analysis among actually publishing scientists (by James Powell) finds "above 99.99%", or what he calls "virtual unanimity". The fact that several studies with different methodologies all find support in the high 95+% is a nice example of consilience, and that usually is takes as very strong evidence for a fact.
Of course an alternative explanation is that all the scientists, all the editors, and all the scientific organisations are conspiring to keep THE TRUTH from us, with only a small number of heroic conservative think tanks and fossil fuel companies desperately trying to defend it. You take your pick...
Stephan
I thought I did since most climate research is funded by tax dollars.
If the research is that important, then publish it and get libraries and other 3rd parties archiving it after the data is collected ---
this is also a good thing as it means observation datasets can no longer be tampered with in the future to support new models.
This tampering thing is a myth. Datasets do need to be normalized and massaged before you draw any useful conclusions from them, but you can get the raw data if you're interested -- for example the station data in the instrumental record. The myth persists because people want to believe it and don't even make rudimentary efforts to see if it is true.
I've been reading a lot of this bullshit, and it's clear the people spreading them have never bothered to look for the data or go to the papers which published the data, or to even figure out what the data means. For example I have been hearing a lot from denialists about how the "unadjusted radiosonde" data shows there's no warming, so I tracked down the paper which is the source of that claim. To understand the data you have to understand what a radiosonde is: it's balloon-borne instrument that takes a cross section of measurements from the troposphere -- which warms under AGW -- into the stratosphere -- which cools under AGW. So adding up all the measurements can't tell you whether or not the lower levels of the atmosphere have gotten warmer, you have to select just the relevant data.
I doubt that Trump's team is going to say "delete the research data", anyways.
Of course he hasn't said he's going to do it, but neither did the Harper government in Canada. In that case the advance notice was sent out in August when many of the library staff was on vacation stating there was going to be a consolidation of services and a move toward electronic distribution. That sounded innocuous, but three weeks later a hundred years worth of journals, technical reports and datasets were in the landfill.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Stating a fact is not a strawman argument. Trump did petition to have a sea wall installed and in his petition it is specifically stated it is because of the possibility of rising sea levels due to climate change. The exact words:
"If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct, however, it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just in Doughmore Bay but around much of the coastline of Ireland."
Further, he sent out flyers to the local populace in regards to this proposal in which it states:
"Predicted sea level rise and more frequent storm events will increase the rate of erosion throughout the 21st century."
So Trump being Trump, he says one thing but does another. Like his golf course in Connecticut which he has repeatedly bragged is worth $50 million but wanted to claim on his taxes was only worth $1.5 million.
Then again, the con artist has done the same thing around the country with his golf courses, bragging about being worth X millions but claiming for tax purposes significantly lower values.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I wonder how much better productivity would be if people were healthier due to lower pollution.
Anyway, short term profits don't trump averting a long term disaster.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Better to burn all the research to the ground and call it a day.
Although, that would be a man-made contribution to global warming...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Nothing to say? Really?
The scientific consensus is pretty clear on what we need to do, and the consequences of not doing it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If you want to see the oppositions disproval, then you Need to fund their research equally, just like the researchers received the massive funding for their work who actually started off with assumption that greenhouse-gas-caused climate change exists and is caused by humans.
The ones who assume work doesn't prove the foundation of their research is true though,
they just further developed the theory, which doesn't receive adequate funding for critical truth analysis.
Cool, so who's going to fund my flat earth research?
I stole this Sig
Couldn't they just make it all up again? The whole thing is a powergrab by nanny-state socialists.
Yeah, you'd think if it were all made up they could just make it all up again. This just serves to demonstrate the unpresidented level of detail they are taking this climate change simulation simulation thing.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
>16% of global greenhouse gas emissions
Citation please? Human caused or total?
Starting with the props used in faking the moon landing, right? Remember to wash the tin foil, after it sits on your head long enough you might get a rash if you don't.
Actually China looks a lot more effective than the US at combating climate change long term. In the US it all depends on whether big oil has bought the government of the day. China makes all the solar pv cells for the world and has an actual plan.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Can you perhaps cite the peer reviewed paper predicting all those things?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Former climate sceptic Richard Muller [wikipedia.org] got funded by the Koch brothers, and, with his team, did a completely independent reconstruction of the temperature record of the last.
He wasn't a skeptic: that was propaganda and you fell for it.
Global Warming Bombshell (by Richard Muller) sure sounds very sceptical about the Hockey Stick.
Stephan
1. Climate change is something we need to do everything about ASAP.
2. Climate change is something we can take time to figure out more about.
And even those may not be entirely accurate. If climate change is a problem we need to do something immediately about, it doesn't matter if humans caused it until you get to talking about remedies.
In fact, two positions could be:
1. Man should do everything to gain control of himself and his environment.
2. Man should leave everything up to forces not under his control, and not play God.
China makes all the solar pv cells for the world and has an actual plan.
Their plan is status quo till 2030 and maybe China will do something about global warming then, maybe not. Funny how similar that is to the US plan.
If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do)
Again, you fell for propaganda.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Your post and the post I was responding to cite exactly zero peer-reviewed papers.
"You must similarly believe that the US is the only ones that can, and need to, somehow solve the problem"
Come on man and get with the program. The US is supposed to cure all the worlds problems while everyone else stands on the sideline holding their coats and complaining. There are some exceptions with other countries offering token support based on how much money the US is willing to throw their way. When the problems don't get fixed the countries standing on the sidelines can blame the US. Climate change is just another one of the many problems in the world that get laid at the US's feet.
And these scientists who are afraid of Trump deleting their data are morons. If these scientists are this stupid, and politically biased, we best get some others to review the data these morons are worried about losing. And for the record climate change data is compelling evidence of climate change. The problem is what can be done to help solve the problem. And what causes global warming? Too many fucking people on the planet. That is the root of the problem and it is only going to get worse. Population growth will always outpace any other action trying to control climate change. As natural resources become more scarce the wars will begin. After the war reduces the world population to a few million the climate can fix itself over a few hundred years.
When it comes to "international" cooperation the US is left holding the check. The US funds almost 25% of the UN and 80% of the ISS. The US subsidizes the military protection for countries in Europe while funding 70% of NATO. And what has the US received in return? A bunch of whiny morons incapable of addressing and understanding multi faceted situations. Blaming the US for their troubles is much more simple and protest signs are not big enough to include all those responsible for whatever the protest of the day is.
Having problems with head chopping psychopaths rampaging across the ME? First you need to blame everything on US interference. Then once the blame is firmly affixed the whining masses can move on to the next outrage of the day. These ass hats NEVER offer up any realistic ideas to resolve the problems they just like placing blame and venting their outrage. These ass hats can take a large share of the credit for the 750,00 deaths and millions of refugees in Syria. The entire world has did nothing but supply just enough support to make sure the war would drag on. And all this leading up to the carpet bombing of a city filled with civilians. With hospitals and schools specifically targeted. The US could have destroyed the Syrian air force early on in the conflict but withheld it's hand due to politics. Politics - the refuge for those with complaints but no solutions. The home for people who put winning an argument ahead of addressing the content of the argument. The home for those latch on to an idea and fiercely oppose looking at any information that may conflict with the their close minded world view.
No matter how much evidence there is
Typical of the overblown rhetoric. "We don't have a lot of evidence for our claims, but if we did, you'd still ignore it!"
If you look at actual spending on climate change propaganda, you'll see that the "deniers" are outspent by the "alarmers" by at least an order of magnitude. It's not even close.
In the US:
Is CO2 "pollution" to you? If so, CO2 has nothing to do with health, so "not any better". If not, US has massively reduced air pollution since I was young - to the point that the only places that even have a problem are a handful of cities where for some reason there's very poor circulation between the air above the city and the atmosphere in general. So "almost no difference, but maybe a little".
I China or India: it's a big deal. But it's no worse than the US when we were going through the industrial revolution, so it's not like we have any moral high ground here. They'll eventually get on top of the problem, just like we did.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The scientific consensus is pretty clear on what we need to do, and the consequences of not doing it.
It's actually not.
There are some scientists who say we need to replace coal immediately, otherwise civilization could be destroyed. Most scientists are more moderate, and consider that too rash, but there's no broad consensus on what we should do.
In one survey of climate scientists, for example, half of scientists said mitigation was the approach we should take, and half said we should favor adaptation in the face of climate change. So clearly there's no consensus there, I don't know why you even thought there was.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You were saying?
ExxonMobil already did some comprehensive, high quality research on climate change in the 1970s. They discovered AGW but decided to bury their research and go about a campaign to discredit anyone who made similar findings. Or perhaps you haven't been following the news lately?
Given how their innocuous research has been blown way out of proportion to claim that they're doing a "Big Nicotine" denial act, they were right to keep it secret. It takes a particular mendacity to claim that merely doing climate research is an admission of guilt in some imaginary propaganda war.
Yup, exactly the same effect. But apparently the evangelical right has such limited influence these days that Trump won the primary - though still enough to matter in the general or Trump wouldn't have picked Pence.
Trump proved that you can be pro-choice and still win the Republican primary. That's a real milestone.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
So it's not destroyed by an incoming right-wing government.
You don't need the maximum dosage of horseshit pills, the regular dose is more than enough.
You're so brainwashed you really believe that story. Read a little history, isntead of propaganda. He was punished for mocking the pope's personal theory after writing a contract to include it in his book. And yes, it was the pope's personal theory; the pope most specifically stated that it was not divinely inspired.
Who?
Name over of these scientists claiming civilisation will be destroyed if we don't immediately stop using coal.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The latest analysis among actually publishing scientists [sagepub.com] (by James Powell [wikipedia.org]) finds "above 99.99%", or what he calls "virtual unanimity".
In other words, a crap study. There aren't that many climate researchers in the world to maintain a 10,000 to 1 ratio over the publishing skeptics by probably two orders of magnitude.
So climate scientists are economists now? Sorry, I don't follow your religion. The climate models are barely predictive - still not outperforming the null hypothesis. The idea that you could use them to predict precisely what's going to happen to sea levels and weather patterns around the world 50 years from now, contrasting with and without a change in human activity, is farcical.
Climate science is still in it's infancy. It's useless for problems like "if humans reduce CO2 emissions by X, the economic impact will be $Y" to even one significant digit.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Repeating stupid bullshit doesn't make it true - just ask the lunar conspiracy theorists that have been trying for half a century.
It's a reasonable precaution based on what other right-wing incoming administrations have done.
And generally it is - but there's a lot of it. You going to get a bunch of your winger pals together and store all this stuff when a single study can involve terabytes of data, and checksum the shit out of it to make sure none of it is altered?
Then again, the con artist has done the same thing around the country with his golf courses, bragging about being worth X millions but claiming for tax purposes significantly lower values.
Every rational person does this. Have you ever owned a house? You fight every tax assessment that raises the value of your house, because that's non-trivial money out of your pocket. That has nothing to do with the value you try to sell your house at. In fact, a large gap between the market price of the house and the tax-assessed price is a selling point.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Mentioning Al Gore == sign that you are afflicted with right-wing dumbfuckery, and should seek medical attention.
Okay, I present for my case the most recent IPCC report. It's peer reviewed, data published, methodology widely reviewed.
What do you have?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So it's not destroyed by an incoming right-wing government.
If the data were really "out there" as claimed how could the government destroy it? That's the issue to me. Either they did publish the data in which case the government cannot possibly destroy it. Or they never did in fact publish the data, in which case the government could possibly destroy it, but it hardly matters since what they were doing was not science.
You don't need the maximum dosage of horseshit pills
Well I guess you'd be the expert to talk to on horseshit. since you seem to be shoveling quite the load yourself.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
James Hansen. He must believe it too, because he is willing to go out and protest, and even be arrested to try to change things. So good on him for being sincere.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Right, because the industry where a single company can make $40 billion in a quarter just doesn't have any money to advocate their interests.
Widespread "Consensus" is not the measure of scientific fact.
It definitely should be for laymen.
Moreover, scientific facts are not brought into existence by 'disputes'. You can discuss on public forums whether the earth is flat or not all day long and link to various flat-earth conspiracy blogs, and those discussions will not give you the slightest insight about the earth's shape. If you think you have something to contribute, get invited to an international conference on climate science. That will be easy if you know something about climate science and have done some research.
Like it or not, there is a real dispute
No there isn't, as huge meta-study has already shown one or two years ago. Unless you're a climate scientist, the 'dispute' is only in your mind.
Poe's law in full effect now, but given your posting history I'm guessing you're not joking.
I'm curious how you believe that more CO2 in the atmosphere will increase UV emissions? If the atmosphere heats up we'll get more water vapor and thus increase the UV albedo of the atmosphere, yes?
Drowning? Are water levels increasing faster than people can walk part of your religion? Falling debris? I'm sure you'll explain how climate change causes earthquakes - I know I've seen that claim in the media a couple of times now.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
You forgot tornadoes, massive forest fires and heat deaths out of your list of things that have already happened.
It's a work in progress.
Warmer temperatures mean more moisture in the air, which contributes to some of the 30" snowstorms that New England has had over the last few years.
So which movies are you basing your idea of what scientists have actually said? Day After Tomorrow? Because otherwise, that's just a pantload of hysterical denialist straw men.
Well, most people just never cared, but it was commonly understood that the world was round. Every sailor knew it, and that's in fact how it came to be known in antiquity.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
A more likely alternative explanation would be that the people in question are afraid to disagree with the majority without strong evidence and the vast majority aren't interested enough to do the analysis themselves. Not that I think that that's actually what's happening, but strawman arguments do more harm than good.
...than the "good old days". In the words of head CRU scientist Phil Jones:
Maybe make all the data and code open source, for anyone to peruse, and you won't have to worry about it being "saved".
Of course, if you make it too open, maybe someone will find something wrong with your grid cell adjustments...
Drivel. Climate scientists are dependent on grants from the U.S. Government, and the U.S. Government has an overwhelming bias towards fossil fuel production. Even "liberal Democrats" like Obama have threatened to use force to keep oil moving through the Gulf, opened the eastern seaboard to offshore drilling, and bragged about domestic producers drilling oil faster than we have transpiration capacity to move it. And the single largest user of fossil fuels is the U.S. military.
Did you blather on about biases and agendas when scientists were proving that asbestos and cigarette smoke caused cancer? If not, why not?
Your analogy is wrong. You believe that somehow "Global" warming only impacts America? You must similarly believe that the US is the only ones that can, and need to, somehow solve the problem. I have no idea how you ignore China, India, Pakistan, and Russia, and quite frankly the majority of what we call "Developing Nations" (most of the planet)
So, your attitude is that the US should just let someone else solve the problem, and then buy the next generation of reactors, solar panels, etc, from them? Maybe we should do that with other industries, as well? After all, they take a lot of effort. Let someone else design new cell phones and computer chips. Let someone else develop new materials for insulation, energy distribution, and industrial processes. Let someone else conduct research on the terrestrial ecosystem.
... who have been increasing pollutants and industrialization over the same time the West has done the opposite.
The West has not reduced pollution, we have simply reduced the rate at which we are adding pollution.
oblig XKCD
Climate change can also reduce sunburn and skin cancer, and drownings, and freezings, and blunt force trauma, and starvation, and any other number of health benefits.
Not all change has negative consequences.
Not around here it isn't.
Your plan to reduce population is what exactly? Your plan had best contain "me first" in the doctrine or I'll consider you a quack. Ted Turner for example claimed that well over 9/10ths of the population needs to be killed off, yet he has 5 kids. Double what sustaining population requires. I don't take him seriously because he's not offering up any of his children or himself to the sacrifice, he only want's people of less economic status than himself dead.
So lets hear your great plan.
Oh, and when your plan to avert long term disaster omits the majority of the humans on Earth, your plan is doomed to fail. How about your plan to "fix" global warming? I'm anxious to hear that one too.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
False dichotomy. The US is only "part" of the problem and can only be "part" of the solution. Since there is no such thing as a One World Government it can not be regulation by One Government to fix issues.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Five seconds with Google shows you lied. In his latest paper states that we are close to the point of no return, i.e. the moment when we can't undo the damage. That's a long way from the end of civilisation.
He recommends a 6% emissions reduction per year. Doesn't specifically say we need to stop all coal use immediately, only 6% across the board.
Anyone else you want me to debunk?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Actually, we haven't believed the earth is flat ever since we started to seriously consider the matter. The proofs that it's round are just too obvious. In fact, Eratosthenes determined the size of the globe within a few percentage points over 2300 years ago.
well basically you would think that because you're a paranoid minute loonie. How do I know? Well, basically your post just proved it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The latest analysis among actually publishing scientists [sagepub.com] (by James Powell [wikipedia.org]) finds "above 99.99%", or what he calls "virtual unanimity".
In other words, a crap study. There aren't that many climate researchers in the world to maintain a 10,000 to 1 ratio over the publishing skeptics by probably two orders of magnitude.
Powell counted 69406 to 4, and apparently the referees and editors at the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society agreed. The full paper including the methodology is online, as are the data sets.
Stephan
Five seconds with Google shows you lied
You couldn't find something said by someone in 5 seconds in Google, and conclude it wasn't said? Do you also think the universe disappears if you close your eyes?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Widespread "Consensus" is not the measure of scientific fact; if it were, we'd all still believe that the Earth is flat, etc.
There are legitimate criticisms about the climate models, the interpretations of measurements, and even the very way in which certain mathematical principles are applied. Like it or not, there is a real dispute, and the side that has the support of the Taxman and the liberal Hollywood elite should really be suspect.
Widespread consensus offers a qualitative measure of how the issue is playing out amongst those who are well-informed. The "legitimate criticisms" about the models have somehow not persuaded them that the issue is still being pulled equally in opposite directions. The "interpretation of measurements" question is apparently not enough of a conundrum to confound the conclusion that the steady absoption of energy by the climate system can be roughly quantified, and that this is consistent with a range of observations, from melting ice to changing ocean chemistry. We're to understand that there is still some room for discussion on the matter of climate sensitivity, but it likely falls within a range that suggests the problem is extremely urgent and deadly serious.
Such a "consensus" doesn't settle the question, but it tells us that the scientific community has run out of alternative hypotheses that fit the data, or which cast significant doubt on which conclusions to draw regarding causes. It doesn't mean you are not allowed to pose a new hypothesis that fits the data.
wikipedia says that he actually called for coal to be phased out by 2030. So, no, you lose. Try again?
That's just an absurd claim made by morons who have no idea what they're talking about. While that does demonstrate your stupidity, it doesn't provide the information I requested.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Are those scientific sources? Why would you even mention them? Are you a fucking idiot?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
China? What a great example. It's a country that has curbed the rise in CO2 emissions far more than the USA over the past 2 years. And I mean who do they think they are with being number 20 in the list of countries in emissions per capita. The USA is far better at ... well fuck we are number 7... Actually per capita we emit 3 times as much as China and 9 times as much as India.
Yeah those bloody developing nations ruining the world. Damn them right?
Idiot.
think of the four horsemen and you would about cover what is coming..
NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
Except for people living near the coast, most commoners would never have even heard of the sea, let alone seen it.
The thought about what shape the Earth was wouldn't have even crossed their minds.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
He wrote, quote, "coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet." He said, "The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. They need to be shut down." He wants to reduce the CO2, not stop its increase.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Right. Almost everyone knew the Earth was round because 99.999999999999999999999999999999% of people were sailors in those days.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I'm sorry but I must have missed their work because I didn't see them get the Noble prize for physics. The truth is that if someone does come up with an explanation for the warming that we are experiencing which gives better predictions and doesn't require the CO2 emissions from humans then they will win that years Nobel.
The problem is that based on a video I've seen there's a very simple experiment to show that an atmosphere with more CO2 warms up faster and it's very easy to calculate the amount of CO2 that we put into the atmosphere per year to increase the percentage as compared to what is naturally increasing it.
The experiment:
- Take two tubes that have a black back such as those that are used to heat water on roofs
- Insert a thermometer into each
- Seal each tube off
- Into one tube add CO2 so that it increase the concentration by 5ppm (I don't remember what the experiment did)
- Place both tubes into the sun
You should see that the tube with the increased CO2 gets warmer faster. From that you can extrapolate that our atmosphere would be warmer if the concentration of CO2 was higher. And you know that the concentration of CO2 is going higher because we're burning so many fossil fuels. You know how much it's increasing in the atmosphere in one year and you can subtract how much we contribute by burning fossil fuels, both known or guessable values, to get a value for how much CO2 nature is putting into the atmosphere a year.
Hansen wrote, quote, "coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet." He said, "The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. They need to be shut down."
Hansen pretty clearly wants CO2 emissions to be reduced so much that CO2 levels drop, not remain level.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So therefore he supports specifics different than the specifics he actually supports?
No, using strongly worded but very general hyperbole is not the same as supporting very specific policy ideas like immediately stopping the use of coal. He supports phasing it out by 2030. Stop failing so hard.
+1. The US is responsible for almost 30% of all the historical emissions :
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
Scientific theories need to be proven as true before anyone can try to disprove them.
"Proof" is very different matter in the empirical world. There one would look for data and tests that allow one to distinguish between rival hypotheses.
Which step is the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) on?
Which AGW theory? We actually have strong evidence that there is an AGW effect. For example, isotope concentrations of carbon isotopes (C14 having a short half life, is not present in fossil fuels, but is present in surface carbon due to solar radiation) indicate that in the last couple of centuries, there has been a considerable increase in atmospheric carbon from geological sources like fossil fuels or volcanoes (with human generated sources overwhelming all other known sources of geological carbon). It's varies in difficulty to determine the human contribution of some other greenhouse gases, methane tends to be harder since geological carbon contributes far less to that, but CFCs are easier (since non-human contributions are very low).
This demonstrates the first pillar of any AGW theory, that humans have made a significant contribution to the growing CO2 concentrations in Earth's atmosphere.
Second, we can directly observe the radiative and reflective properties of default atmosphere (excluding clouds and other weather effects). These indicate that CO2 does indeed block certain infra-red spectrum gaps of water vapor and thus, causes the atmosphere to retain heat. That demonstrates the second important part of any AGW theory, namely, that increased levels of CO2 do result in some degree of warming of the Earth.
There are plenty of issues with determining the human contribution past that, but it remains that the key two aspects of any AGW theory are pretty much nailed down qualitatively.
The real problem comes in with what the effects of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are and how much harm those effects will cause. There, I think climate research has gone off the rails completely. For example, short term warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 1.5 C per doubling, based on the actual temperature changes of the past century and a half and the actual changes in the concentration of CO2. The IPCC claims that the long term warming from a doubling of CO2 is 3 C per doubling (actually 1.5 C to 4.5 C per doubling due to the huge errors in the estimate) due to positive feedback mechanisms, most which have not been demonstrated as existing while simultaneously downplaying negative feedback such as weather.
There there's the accounting games played with estimating the harm of global warming. For example, a common ploy is to greatly deflate time value via a discount rate. For example, the Stern Review, an early attempt to calculate the cost of global warming used a 1.4% discount rate (I believe derived from the historical growth rate of UK GDP at the time the report was issued) versus roughly 3% discount rate (derived from the growth rate of world GDP over a similar time frame), if we assume that GDP is roughly proportional to the size of an economy and that the current global growth rate continues for a century (aside from climate change-related adjustments), we get roughly that a 10% reduction of the global economy now is equivalent in the Stern report to a 5% reduction in the global economy in 50 years or a little over a 2% reduction in 100 years.
Other sorts of harm are similarly exaggerated such as rising sea levels, movement of agriculture, or extreme weather. The last is particularly notorious for being a textbook confirmation bias thing, in particular with the moral hazard of US public flood insurance (which has long encouraged humans to live in flood zones and is responsible for a huge increase in US property damage from floods and hurricanes to the extent that it swa
Trump declared that climate change is a hoax from Gina (as Trump pronounces it. like vagina just without the va). After making that up there is no need for any hard researched facts. Trump rejects reality and substitutes his own...especially when it makes a lot of money....unless of course the opposite is the better option, then he flip flops on what he said yesterday. It appears as that there are way more places with lead in the water than Flint, otherwise there is no explanation for that many ridiculously....oh, sorry, rediculously stupid people who voted for Trump. And lastly, a shoutout to Putin for effectively destabilizing the US, nicely done!
Okay, so the reference is to human caused activities vs other? I can't seem to locate the total green house gas production, only the total "human caused". The numbers are big, relativity, but meaningless without proper context? If it's 16% of 0.0000001% of the total, then who cares? If it's 16% of 100% then that's concerning.
I first wanted to say thank you for holding your scientific position here in the face of ignorant objections. it always astounds me how people believe that the consensus among scientists is either a massive conspiracy or some sort of hugely biased poll where the objectors never get a voice.
With all that said, I took a few minutes to read your linked article. Something is a little "fishy" in that figure, based on the other articles cited. For example, he cites a 2010 study that claimed to find 2.5% of the top 200 climate researchers "as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications)" were "unconvinced by the evidence." That's 5 climate scientists just out of the top 200 -- and those 200 were apparently the most published folks.
How do we square that with the article's claim to only find 5 articles TOTAL (with 4 authors) -- out of the ~70,000 he claims to have looked at -- which show evidence of rejecting the hypothesis? The article further claims that these 5 articles were only ever cited once, implying that they don't have a strong reputation.
These claims seem a bit contradictory. If we are to believe the present study that there are only ~4 scientists who are skeptical (and apparently have minimal unpopular publications), how did the 2010 study find 5 skeptical scientists just among the 200 most published climate scientists??
Granted, the present article was done with publications a few years later, so some skeptics may have changed their minds (or died or whatever), but something doesn't quite add up here to get the 99.99% figure.
Also, this article apparently accepts "clear statements of rejection or that some process other than AGW better explains the observations" as the only evidence of "rejection," while lumping together all other articles in the "positive" group. I agree with the article's critiques of previous methods that just ignored all articles which didn't declare a "for or against" explicitly -- that also seems stupid. And I agree with the author that the vast majority of those which don't declare explicitly "for" AGW probably do still adhere to the theory. But that doesn't justify calling ALL articles without "clear statements of rejection" to be authored be scientists who adhere to the theory with no reservations.
And when we look back at Cook et al. (2013), we find 78 abstracts and 124 authors "reject AGW" explicitly and 40 abstracts/44 authors are "uncertain on AGW." While Cook found a gradual increase in the acceptance numbers over time (about +0.1%/year), he still was estimating it at ~98% in 2011, compared to ~97% over the 20-year period examined. Did these ~168 skeptical authors simply vanish in 2-3 years for your article's data? Have the criteria used to justify classifying a paper as a "rejection" been raised?
I didn't go digging through all the supplementary data to Cook, but from a graph of their data over time, it looks like they examined roughly 1500-1700 papers from 2011, which given their reported percentage of 98% acceptance in 2011 would imply somewhere around 30-35 papers Cook et al. found just in that year alone. But by 2013-14 of your cited study, that number fell to 2.5/year for a much larger sample (~12,000 articles/year).
The numbers don't quite mesh between these various studies, even if you take into account the rational criticisms of previous studies.
Basically, I'm mostly with you and the author of this article in that consensus is at least 97% and probably quite a bit more. But there's some flimsy argumentation being made here... either that, or the previous studies that claimed to have found a slightly higher percentages of objectors were fundamentally flawed in simply COUNTING the "rejections" in some way (even though the author doesn't argue that the previous data was outright false or something on that order).
Oh, in my final sentences I forgot the last possibility, i.e., that >90% of the previous "skeptics" had either died, stopped publishing for some other reason, or changed their minds between 2011 and 2013. I suppose that's possible, but that doesn't follow the trends Cook observed of a much more gradual growth of consensus despite fairly overwhelming evidence being collected in the early 2000s.
Water vapor amplifies warming
https://www.google.ca/amp/phys...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The scientific consensus IS that humans are causing it. What politicians, ACs on /. and bloggers think is utter irrelevant.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Can you define "barely predictive"? They all point to warming, which confirmed by the data. This appears to be one of those goal post moving arguments.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Provide the list of works that falsify AGW. And no, tweets, blog posts and WSJ editorials are not falsifications. Since you seem to believe AGW has been demolished, it should be trivial to find a dozen published articles falsifying the link between CO2 emissions and warming, or falsifying the data that demonstrates the warming.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No. Their plan currently appears to be to build something from every available electricity generation method and to see how it goes. Nukes, wind, everything.
I saw this quite interesting video on TED Talks:
https://www.ted.com/talks/mich...
The speaker makes a rather compelling case for using nuclear power. We've been making great gains in wind and solar world wide but that growth is overshadowed by gains in fossil fuel use. The one energy source that has had the greatest reductions in CO2 emissions is nuclear power and we're shutting them down at a rate greater than we're opening new ones.
Those that think we can reduce our carbon footprint without nuclear is just plain fooling themselves. We simply cannot. This includes the current administration. Trump is far from the biggest advocate for reducing carbon output but he might actually be someone that would actually create the carbon reductions that Obama has failed to do.
Sure, Obama gave some lukewarm support for nuclear power at the end of his administration, but he had eight years with his pen and phone and failed to merely allow nuclear power to grow. These nuclear power companies aren't looking for a handout like wind and solar, they are just looking for permission to build. Obama from the beginning only made happy mouth noises for nuclear power, talking about "funding research" which never came.
I am optimistic now with Trump coming into office that the government might actually do something about climate change and build some nuclear power plants. Obama's policies of funding solar panel companies that didn't build any solar panels, and electric car companies that didn't build any cars, did nothing. If Trump starts handing out licenses to build nuclear power plants at a rate greater than replacement then he'd be doing more in building just one new nuclear power plant than what Obama has done in his entire eight years in office. Mr. Michael Shellenberger did the math in his speech, just a handful of new nuclear power plants could do more to reduce carbon output than wind or solar could ever do.
Words mean nothing to me. It's action that counts. Obama might have said a lot about how we need to stop global warming but he did next to nothing to stop it. Trump might be nothing more than a carnival barker in a trucker hat but if he puts people in the EPA, Energy, and NRC that will make nuclear power grow then he could do more to stop global warming in his first 100 days than Obama did in his entire political career.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I see the new medication works!
Now that you are getting more lucid please consider that the USA still pollutes more per person than any other nation on the planet, thus some effort to reduce that WILL have an impact on the global situation.
The "publishing skeptics" you refer don't publish AGW-skeptical papers. This is something you should note very carefully. The actual small number of out and out skeptical researchers in climatology don't write their vast AGW-debunking critiques in journals, they write them in places like the Wall Street Journal. Their published works tends to be pretty mundane stuff.
This reminds me so much of how people would trumpet Michael Behe as the great destroyer of evolutionary theory, because he is a Intelligent Design-trumpeting biochemist... except he doesn't actually publish anything that debunks evolutionary biology at all, but rather uses his reputation as a IDer/Creationist to bilk morons in church basements out of speaking fees, much as Spencer and Curry use their reputation as AGW-debunkers to earn speaking fees and get anti-AGW screeds published in the WSJ, while they collect nice little paychecks from the Koch Brothers.
Sorry mate, if you're going to the literature to look for you big debunking anthropogenic climate change, you're pretty much fucked. There's about as many published works debunking AGW as there are works debunking Common Descent and General Relativity. You've been sucked in by a scam every bit as made up as a perpetual energy scam, but with some very rich people who have a lot to lose if CO2 is priced for the damage its doing. You're a sucker.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Some day they'll sort out that Canute was trying to demonstrate he *couldn't* stop the tide. Too late for everyone of course.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You must be like the guy telling the Jews in the mid-1930s "Don't worry, they just want to register you. It'll be just fine..."
Trump has made it clear he doesn't accept the science. He's surrounded himself by people who either don't accept the science, or have strong commercial reasons to try to suppress it. He has a Congress stacked with people who either think God wants coal to be burned or who take their orders from fossil fuel companies.
But you know what, it doesn't fucking matter, because the laws of nature don't give a fuck about Donald Trump, and CO2 has the properties it has, and all the delicate little Republican snowflakes in the world won't make a bit of difference. You cannot stop the laws of physics with a fucking vote.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That's what the deniers say. They keep on wheeling out economists to deny the arguments of actual scientists.
It has been more than a century since the El-Nino/La-Nina cycle was identified by climate scientists. When Scott went on an expedition to Antarctica just over a century ago he took some climate scientists with him.
You have been conned by very expensive PR so it's not your fault, but it is somewhat pathetic.
That was politics.
Calling someone with a lot of political power an utterly brainless goose can tend to provoke conflict.
Yes, yes - the mainstream is bigger than the idiot fringe, just get over it.
Check out some uranium mining sites sometime
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This time never really existed. Some scientists might have said that laymen cannot understand the raw data, because most of them can't, but the data is and has been publicly available on many places for a long time.
That does not explain the rush to preserve the data. If it was publicly available, and people have been asking for it, then would not the desire to assure the data was preserved be a mere matter of making some phone calls to make sure the people that retrieved the data kept their copies?
The university I attend offers degree programs in topics related to climate change and I know that there are students in these programs that would love to have this data. This is just one university of hundreds that has the facilities and interest to preserve this data. If they are frantic about preserving this data now then what were they doing with the data before? Should this data not already have been preserved in multiple locations by now? In places that even a "book burner" like Trump would be unable to seek out and destroy?
This all sounds like a bunch of FUD to me to get some headlines. Congrats, mission accomplished.
Oh, right, even "mission accomplished" is now a right wing conspiracy or something.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
"Warming"? A random guess has a 50% chance of predicting "cooling" or "warming" correctly.
Barely predictive as in 2 sigmas, statistically. Given there are hundreds of models, you'd expect several models that predictive if they were all random. Of course, they actually do better than random guessing, but not to the point that any given model would be accepted in most fields - heck, even some social science models do better.
The discussion here is not about "warming", in case you missed the point, but about economics. How much will it cost to reduce CO2 by X, and how much economic benefit will we accrue by doing so. Do you get that?
It would be very impressive for a climate model to be that usefully predictive, but then many fields of science are very impressive.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
You've avoided the question entirely.
If we reduce CO2 emission by X, how much does that save us in damages, measured economically, by decade. That's the interesting question, and it's one that climate science could indeed make predictions about, if it were far more mature and predictive than it is now.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
That's was not the question at hand.
Increased water vapor increases the Earth's albedo - in fact, it's the dominant factor in the Earth's albedo (with reflection from ice and simple refraction also playing a part). It still has a net warming effect, because it traps IR more than it reflects UV.
Did you follow that? Do you see why it's comical to predict more UV as a consequence of global warming?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Did you know people talk to other people? OK, they may not talk to you, all things considered, but it's a real thing! Google around for it if you need to, but it was commonly known that the world wasn't flat quite early on.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
What argument. Al Gore Derangement Syndrome isn't an argument, it's dumbfuckery.
Your projection is noted.
It's the interesting question, politically: should we reduce CO2 emissions, and, if so, by how much. We need far better climate models to even start on such a discussion, but also economists to finish the discussion. You've stumbled on my entire point upthread: when scientists start making such claims, they are speaking as unqualified economists.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Yeah, you'd think if it were all made up they could just make it all up again. This just serves to demonstrate the unpresidented level of detail they are taking this climate change simulation simulation thing.
Still not an actual word.
My post was sarcasm and the use of the word was intentional.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Now you've called people in politics "scientists". You are using the disgusting little high school debate trick of pretending a huge number of unconnected groups is a single person - shame on you!
I think the deniers don't like to admit (whether consciously or unconsciously) that GW/AGW is happening because the mitigation would be in conflict with their ideological or moral beliefs (turns out there is a correlation between opinion on GW and political beliefs). I wish they rather followed the example of George Carlin, who said fair and square that he doesn't care about humanity (anymore), rather than doubt the science.
If that was the case, perhaps we'd find out that people who don't care about the future of humanity are in a majority, and perhaps I shouldn't be concerned about the future of humanity in the first place. At least I'd feel better when reading discussions about climate on Slashdot.
That was politics.
Really?
Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Actual scientists also make such claims, you know.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I don't know how things are where you live, but around here the assessed value of real estate for tax purposes is roughly 70% of it's fair market value. I don't think this is uncommon. Taxable value and fair market value are different things, and it is not surprising (to me, anyway) that Trump would say the market value of his property is higher than it's taxable value. This is not hypocrisy -- this is just how the system works.
Another interesting TED Talk on the subject:
https://www.ted.com/talks/davi...
Dr. MacKay goes through the math on what it would take to replace fossil fuels with carbon free energy. A couple notable statistics is that it would take a 5x increase in nuclear power or a 20x increase in wind power for the UK to provide current energy needs carbon free. This is an older video, and a nuclear reactor or two have been shut down since so it's likely closer to 6x now.
The resources needed for wind or solar to meet current energy needs for nations like the USA or UK are mind boggling. On the other hand we know we have enough manufacturing capacity to build up enough nuclear power to meet all our energy needs. The resources needed might still be mind blowing but it is manageable.
Near the end of Dr. MacKay's talk he speaks of energy conservation in a way that reminds me of Amory Lovins talks on "negawatts". Lovins likes to give these very convincing talks on how we can solve the world's energy problems with energy efficiency and "green" energy but the difference is that after thinking about MacKay's talk you don't get the feeling that you've just been shoveled a bunch of BS. Lovins will give a talk with a lot of optimism but in the end he lacks any real numbers and a lot of hope that new technology can save us. Dr. MacKay gives real numbers and after doing the math with him it seems quite obvious that nuclear power must be part of the energy solution or we will end up with some very expensive energy that relies on favorable weather, favorable relations with neighboring nations (since there would be a reliance on freely buying and selling of energy), and technological developments favorable to wind and solar.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
My post was sarcasm and the use of the word was intentional.
Hence the simulation simulation?
All of this data should be archived somewhere else. Only a fool would keep one copy of data and have that one spot a web server.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
I agree.
And what scientists think is utterly irrelevant when it comes to deciding what to do about climate change. And, yes, doing nothing is a reasonable decision.
Damn it! Foiled! You heard it here first from SuperKendall himself! He's figured out that all the raw data that's just a Google search away is all lies. TransSEXuals are raping the real data in the bathroom! Lizard people! We can't trust anything! IT'S ALL FAKE NEWS!eleven!1!!
The scientific consensus only says "if you want to keep temperature increases below X, you need to reduce carbon emissions to Y".
Scientists have no legitimacy determining what consequences society is willing to live with, or how we go about reducing carbon emissions.
I have the IPCC report. It says "if you do nothing, then in the worst case, this will happen..." And to that I say: I can live with that, so let's do nothing. Lots of other people are saying the same thing.
Now, what do you have?
No, using strongly worded but very general hyperbole is not the same as supporting very specific policy ideas like immediately stopping the use of coal. He supports phasing it out by 2030. Stop failing so hard.
I don't need to use hyperbole lol, his actual statements are extreme enough.
The actual point is that there is no consensus on how to address AGW. I hope you didn't miss that point while you were attacking a strawman.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
We were talking about research, not advocacy. And your numbers are way off; total annual profits of all US and Canadian oil and gas producers are about $100 billion. That compares to over a trillion dollars the US government is spending on public schools, public universities, and research grants, all of which are dedicated to pushing the party line on climate change on the most impressionable members of society.
In reality or in your lumped together strawman?
Citation needed. Context is also important.
Considering how you declare century+ old climate science is "new" your word is not going to be enough.
Yes really.
Also intensely personal since the Pontiff and Galileo were rivals as students.
It's worth considering the vote of the Cardinals as well, many were on Galileo's side, just not a majority of them.
Make authority look stupid (Simplicio in Galileo's text being an obvious and insulting parody of the Pontiff) and they see it as a threat to their power and lock you up - that is the lesson to be taken from that situation. Books by Copernicus had been circulating among the clergy for decades before the dispute.
I suggest you read a bit more about it since it was a very interesting situation and because it seems every psuedo-science scam artist takes the name of Galileo in vain when their scam is questioned.
Those are mostly crap studies, with narrowly defined questions that even skeptical scientists will agree with (questions like, "Does human influence have some effect on the climate?"). Here's a much better study with a nuanced approach, for those who actually want to understand the issue.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I guess you don't think those floods and extreme weather have anything to do with climate change. The science disagrees with you.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Ah, okay, so you accept the science, you just don't give a shit. As long as we are clear about that I don't think I need to comment any further.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Who in the scientific community is spending more than the energy industries to influence the government and electorate?
Governments, NGOs. But I guess they're no more the "scientific community" than energy industries are.
Powell counted 69406 to 4
Bullshit. There aren't that many climate researchers in the world. And Stephan, I have a bit of hate for you right now for making me read this stupid piece of shit just so I could refute your argument. Here's the problem right in the methodology:
To find the number of recent articles that reject AGW, I used the following method:
Web of Science Core Collection
Enhanced Science Index
Publication Years: 2013 and 2014
Document Type: Article
Topics: âoeGlobal warmingâ or âoeglobal climate changeâ or âoeclimate change.â
Remove duplicates by combining searches using the OR command.
Export the search results to an Excel file.
Review titles and abstracts looking for clear statements of rejection or that some process other than AGW better explains the observations.
Notice that the author does not actually count climate research papers, doesn't actually find authors who refute or affirm AGW or other climate change theory, and doesn't actually count climate researchers.
Waste of my time.
I first wanted to say thank you for holding your scientific position here in the face of ignorant objections.
AthanasiusKircher, this sort of research is as profoundly unscientific as it comes (including the stuff you quote from Cook et al). And your comments are just as bad. For example, consensus about what?
Notice that the alleged 97% consensus is relatively accurate when the claim is that there is global warming. It goes down once you add that the global warming is human-induced. And then it goes down much further when the claim is that the impact is catastrophic or severe over the next 50 to 100 years to 41%. 41% is a bit less than 97%, right?
I suspect you will find similar divided opinion on the matter of whether immediate mitigation efforts are required right now.
James L. Powell's 99.99% paper is ridiculous and you can see that just by looking through the methodology. It doesn't measure what it claims to measure. You can't get more damning than that. Yet once again, we have these slashdot posts talking about scientific positions and holding the line in the face of "ignorant objections".
Plus the IPCC is notorious for exaggerating things. Just not feeling the urgency either.
I do give a shit. I think objectively, our best choice is to do nothing. Climate activists, on the other hand, are willing to sacrifice millions for self-aggrandizement.
Quote by Richard Muller, from the very article you linked to:
If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do)
Again, you fell for propaganda.
Being concerned that global warming might be real and that human-created CO2 may contribute is now propaganda rather than being open-minded?
Is this more WP "Fake news" ?
No, it is not.
Or do you think that Mr. Mann has not gotten any death-threats, or does not fear this will get worse now during the Trump regime?
Per capita emissions doesn't actually matter though, only total emissions matters.
Sure splitting things up in relative terms makes it easy to compare different nations, but at the end of the day it's the same planet and the emissions affect it with the same strength whether it's been generated for 10 people or 1000.
I first wanted to say thank you for holding your scientific position here in the face of ignorant objections.
AthanasiusKircher, this sort of research is as profoundly unscientific as it comes (including the stuff you quote from Cook et al). And your comments are just as bad. For example, consensus about what? Notice that the alleged 97% consensus is relatively accurate when the claim is that there is global warming. It goes down once you add that the global warming is human-induced. And then it goes down much further when the claim is that the impact is catastrophic or severe over the next 50 to 100 years to 41%. 41% is a bit less than 97%, right? I suspect you will find similar divided opinion on the matter of whether immediate mitigation efforts are required right now. James L. Powell's 99.99% paper is ridiculous and you can see that just by looking through the methodology. It doesn't measure what it claims to measure. You can't get more damning than that. Yet once again, we have these slashdot posts talking about scientific positions and holding the line in the face of "ignorant objections".
You may not like Powell, but he is entirely clear about his methodologies, about how he measures what he measures, and about what data he used. You can certainly disagree with his conclusion, but if you want to be taken serious, you should actually do the work of re-doing the analysis with the same transparency and provide a clear argument for your different interpretation (if it still differs - "Powell is totally wrong, the consensus is only 99.3%" ;--).
I think we are now into infinite regression territory. Everybody who is scientifically literate and looks at the primary literature (and by than I don't mean propaganda blogs) can easily determine the prevailing position. And with a bit of experience in reviewing it's also easy to see the quality (rare) and scope (narrow) of the very few disagreeing publications. But that apparently is not good enough, and we get nit-picking from people who don't like the consensus. What we don't see are significant publications providing alternative explanations.
So now we have meta-analyses, where people go to great length to analyse papers, to count positions, to interview scientists, and to publish their findings in the peer-reviewed literature. But that apparently is not good enough either, and we get nit-picking from people who don't like the consensus. What we don't see are significant academic publications showing that there is indeed no consensus - the best we get is the occasional opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal or the 17 year old fraudulent Oregon Petition.
What's next? Meta-meta studies? Meta-meta-meta-studies? As far as I can tell, the opposition to the consensus is largely immune to rational arguments - "global warming is a hoax invented by the Chinese" is one of the more prominent stupidities in this field.
Stephan
Powell counted 69406 to 4
Bullshit. There aren't that many climate researchers in the world. And Stephan, I have a bit of hate for you right now for making me read this stupid piece of shit just so I could refute your argument. Here's the problem right in the methodology:
To find the number of recent articles that reject AGW, I used the following method: [...]
Notice that the author does not actually count climate research papers, doesn't actually find authors who refute or affirm AGW or other climate change theory, and doesn't actually count climate researchers. Waste of my time.
You do understand that by casting a wide net, Powell increases the chance of finding sceptical papers, right?
As for the number of climate scientists, we can do a simple Fermi approximation. There are apparently around 40000 universities in the world (which jibes nicely with a bit over 400 universities for approximately 80 million inhabitants in Germany). Going with the German sample, about 1/4 to 3/4 of these are research universities (depending on your definition) - so call it 20000. Assuming that half of these do climate research and that the average research group has 10 people, we are at 100000 climate scientists just at universities - without counting NASA (which spends approximately US$ 2e9 on Earth sciences - that should pay about 10000 people alone) or NOAA (with a nearly US$ 5e9 budget - another 25000 people) or Max Planck Institutes in Germany or JAXA in Japan, or any of the corresponding organisations in other states. Now neither NASA not NOAA is all scientists, but it should be clear that 69000 is not an implausible number of climate scientists.
Stephan
our best choice is to do nothing
For values of "our" that don't include the people who suffer to save you a few bucks in the short term. Maybe you are old and will be dead before it gets really expensive where you live too.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
China is putting a lot of effort into reducing its emissions. As is the EU. You seem woefully confused about this, to the point you are arguing against your own best interests. How terribly sad.
I'm 71 years old.
I helped write the fucking book.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
"just a couple of degrees"
when talking about global averages, that's a fuckton.
just a couple degrees cooler and we had snowball earth, with ice sheets that extended south beyond new York city.
ice sheets 2 miles or more thick.
for reference, that also meant that all of Europe , except for the very southern tips of spain and Italy and turkey were covered by those ice sheets.
the only continents left unscathed were Africa (incidentally the period when hominids evolved, and homo sapiens spread across the land), the Indian subcontinent, china, and Australia. South America's southern tips would have been covered too.
oceans were also 400 feet below where they are today.
a couple degrees the other way, and we're back in dinosaur land, with a tropical Antarctica, and seas 200+ feet above current levels.
so yeah...its "just a couple of degrees".
what does it matter?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
reality is not a religion.
but apparently ignorance is.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
no, you don't think.
that's the problem.
you aren't objective.
youre just stupid.
3/4 of the worlds population lives in areas where they will be displaced by rising seas.
that's 5 billion people.
where are they supposed to go?
who takes them in?
how do you avoid conflicts as a result of mass migration of such numbers of people?
so no.
you don't think.
and if you did, you wouldn't then have the gall to state that its the climate activists who are willing to sacrifice millions.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The climate models are barely predictive - still not outperforming the null hypothesis
Blatantly false BS.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
There's a train a coming.
You're on the tracks.
It's a long ways off.
But you can see it.
And people are telling you to get off the tracks.
And you're stating that staying on the tracks is a reasonable decision.
You're an idiot.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
doing research isn't an admission of guilt.
burying research that agreed with the research of others, but was detrimental to their bottom line, and then discrediting the similar findings of other groups for the same reason....that's the admission of guilt.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
you mean this "cherry picked group of 74 people" ???
http://www.jamespowell.org/res...
methinks you don't have a clue.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
and now you reject evidence simply because the numbers are too big based on....what?
your gut instinct?
or are big numbers just too hard?
in a world of 7 billion people you think there cant be that many climate scientists?
keep digging that hole deeper.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
big numbers are scary, therefore they don't exist!
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Let's not wait for a "Ask Slashdot" on how to retrieve large amounts of deleted research.... Anyone have good ideas / suggestions on what individuals should focus on if they would like to help? #ThinkOfTheData
Per capita emissions doesn't actually matter though, only total emissions matters.
Yeah, if you're a raging asshole who thinks they are better and therefore are allowed to emit more than some other people who you think should be sanctioned because you yourself fucked up the world.
but at the end of the day it's the same planet and the emissions
Exactly so drop the me me me attitude and realise that YOU are far worse then THEM.
To quote the first sentence in the above link:
The brain-dead leftist media isn't really in the news business anymore.
Clearly, this site is a paragon of objective reporting...
Fanatically anti-fanatical
That isn't what the IPCC says or the scientific consensus says. What the science actually says is that society will incur some significant costs $X from climate change 50-100 years ago, and that we could theoretically prevent that if we were able to institute massive economic changes that cost $Y now.
Your analogy is misleading because it assumes that $X is infinite (death) while $Y is small (getting off the track). But that's not what "the science" or the IPCC say. According to the IPCC, $X and $Y are comparable in magnitude and, neither of them is lethal, and each just amounts to a small cost relative to GDP.
To bring this down to a smaller scale, assume we're just talking about a family. What you're advocating is that your family spend $10000 right now so that your great-grandchildren in 80 years may avoid having to spend $20000 (in real dollars). To use your words, "you're an idiot". The rational thing to do is to leave the maximum amount of money you can to your grand children; instead of paying $10000 right now, if you just safely invest $1000 in the economy, your great-grandchildren will have $20000 to deal with whatever you fear.
Trump proved that you can be pro-choice and still win the Republican primary. That's a real milestone.
Really? I thought Trump proved that you could be both anti-choice and anti-life and still win the Republican primary and the electoral college.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
burying research that agreed with the research of others, but was detrimental to their bottom line, and then discrediting the similar findings of other groups for the same reason....that's the admission of guilt.
Which let us note, is a story that has been blown way out of proportion. The basic facts are that Exxon did some research on the matter a few decades back and found the usual inconclusive results that have been kicking around in climate change the whole time. Then they spent small amounts on groups that certain critics don't like.
Exxon makes a vast amount of profit. Yet we don't see spending on these alleged activities proportional to that profit in any way. They could have spent a hundred times as much as they supposedly did on the alleged activities, and still make that huge profit. They could have a huge propaganda operation hounding climate researchers, politicians, etc. But they don't. Exxon is a scapegoat not the cause of the ongoing failure of the climate change message.
About 3 million Dutch are living below sea level and doing quite well. After WWII, West Germany accepted massive numbers of German returnees, is it doing poorly economically? Israel is built in an inhospitable country mostly from displaced people, is it hurting economically?
We can't stop sea level rise or climate change; it's already a done deal. So these people will have to deal with the consequences no matter what. And the best way of dealing with it is by helping the rest of the world develop economically as rapidly as possible. The only proposals on the table result in massive economic costs for only a slight slowdown.
No, you don't think, and that's your problem. You keep advocating action on climate change as if any action could stop it; it cannot.
I certainly do have that gall, because self-righteous pricks like you need to understand the harm you are advocating.
Yeah, if you're a raging asshole who thinks they are better and therefore are allowed to emit more than some other people who you think should be sanctioned because you yourself fucked up the world.
Or you realise that not all countries are equal, and if your country emits more CO2 than other countries then its up to you to fix it. I'm Australian, and as far as per capita emissions go we're about as bad as the USA, but because there's so few of us our total emissions make up less than 1% of total global emissions.
If somehow we pull a heroic effort to get rid of coal power tomorrow, the world would still be in trouble. Now you can call me a raging asshole if you like, but I'm applying what political pressure I can in my part of the world, and I recognise that in this situation the lions share of the responsibility is currently on China.
With great population comes great responsibility, or something like that.
and now you reject evidence simply because the numbers are too big based on....what?
First, that many researchers is equivalent to the US's entire PhD production annually.
in a world of 7 billion people you think there cant be that many climate scientists?
Yes.
Let us also note that the paper doesn't actually do what it claims. Just look at the methodology. There's no way the author is finding climate researchers or climate research with the search they're doing.
"Snowball earth" refers to a climate state more than half a billion years ago; global average temperatures weren't "a couple of degrees lower", they were -50C/-74F. What you actually seem to be referring to is the last glacial period (110000 to 15000 years before present) of the current ice age (5-7 million years ago continuing until the present). Temperatures were about 6C lower than they are now. We are currently in a warm period; without AGW, we'd be returning to that state again. Cold is bad. With AGW, we may avoid that fate.
Yes, and that would still be far preferable to the frozen wastelands that the glaciation cycle would return us to. Temperatures would be mild pole to pole, there would be more precipitation and fewer deserts, and plenty of new arable land would open up for people displaced by sea level rise. And sea level rise would be gradual enough (a thousand years or more) for human populations to adapt without even noticing.
Taxable value and fair market value are different things, and it is not surprising (to me, anyway) that Trump would say the market value of his property is higher than it's taxable value
Did you notice he's claiming the taxable value is 3% of what he says the actual value is? That's kind of like saying it's "just speeding" when someone gets caught doing 150 mph on the highway...
Fanatically anti-fanatical
You do understand that by casting a wide net, Powell increases the chance of finding sceptical papers, right?
Powell makes a subjective judgment as to what counts as "Skeptical" papers. And the glaring problem, he already acknowledges that his methodology doesn't count consensus, it only counts researchers who bothered to put a relatively extreme claim in their research. Read the section on "Consensus in the Scientific Literature" where Powell shows how terrible his approach is for other fields. There's a bit of research on censensus out there that isn't deeply broken. Why can't you use that instead?
As to your Fermi approximation, I think you are off greatly in number of research universities, number of research universities that have a climate research program, and the number of people who actually publish relevant climate research. Hence, my claim that you are off by two orders of magnitude.
Until the current administration FOIA requests were trivial, under the current administration it too-frequently requires a federal judge to order the timely release of information from the self-declared 'most transparent administration ever'...
Ken
Everybody who is scientifically literate and looks at the primary literature (and by than I don't mean propaganda blogs) can easily determine the prevailing position.
And everybody who can do that, can also go straight to the evidence. And when we do so, we see things like a factor of three error in the most important parameter in climate science, the temperature sensitivity of a doubling of CO2. We also see important disagreements in opinion on AGW and what, if anything to do about it.
What we don't see are significant publications providing alternative explanations.
I already mentioned one such study. Actual polling of scientists is far superior.
So now we have meta-analyses, where people go to great length to analyse papers, to count positions, to interview scientists, and to publish their findings in the peer-reviewed literature. But that apparently is not good enough either, and we get nit-picking from people who don't like the consensus. What we don't see are significant academic publications showing that there is indeed no consensus - the best we get is the occasional opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal or the 17 year old fraudulent Oregon Petition.
Consensus on what again? You're doing that thing again, where you speak of consensus, but not of what the consensus is about. For example, I believe that there is AGW (so I would be part of that consensus), I just also happen to believe that current climate research has greatly exaggerated the problems and understated the costs of the would-be solutions (so I'm not part of that imaginary consensus).
big numbers are scary, therefore they don't exist!
I too can make straw man arguments. Does that make you wronger?
Oh really? Have they stopped (or even slowed down) their construction of new coal-fired generators?
Ken
Why is it that America is so susceptible to the climate denier lies while most of the rest of the world just gets on with dealing with it? Is there a special be-dumb additive in the water?
Only boring people are ever bored.
The (CO2/Water vapor) positive feedback coefficient is pulled from a dark place and can be used to make climate models tell you anything you want them to.
The (CO2/Cloud cover/albedo change) negative feedback coefficient is exactly the same.
Some early climate 'scientists' were so enthusiastic they proposed a positive feedback coefficient so high the first bug's CO2 exhale would have led to Venus on Earth. They defended these models for years, until the laughter made them pretend they had never proposed them in the first place.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
That isn't the 'Status Quo'? Where?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You apparently can't read.
Go above and read what you wrote.
You said,
There are some scientists who say we need to replace coal immediately, otherwise civilization could be destroyed.
AmiMojo called you on your bullshit and demanded you name the people you were trying to slander. You took up the challenge, even though you knew you made it up, and named James Hansen.
So I looked it up and found out you're full of shit. He's saying the same as everyone else, that it should be phased out. He says by 2030. That refutes your claim.
Then you respond by quoting his hyperbole. You don't even comprehend the words that were said; you can't even tell what is being called hyperbole. But you're arguing anyway; after you've been totally refuted. Pathetic. And then you yackity-yack about a strawman, look, you made the original accusation, and that's what I'm still on. I didn't even make an analogy, where is there room for a straw man accusation? You're failing harder and harder by your irrational insistence on being right even after being caught making a factually incorrect intentional statement. (also known as a lie)
Just factually incorrect.
It really depends oh how you do the accounting. If China gets to export its emissions along with the (manufactured goods/raw materials/ag products), then so does America.
In any case, there are no statistics to back your claim. IIRC Kuwait has the worst raw #s. Europe has the benefit of having very little chemical industry left. Like I say, it depends on how you crunch the #s.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
They hired a publicist.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Since women had the vote, the taller candidate with the better hair always wins. Trump's hair was only slightly better than Hillary's, but clearly he was taller.
It should be recorded that the first thing women did with their votes was pass alcohol prohibition, an epicly, undeniably terrible decision.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
At the time, good catholics believed the pope infallible in all things. Or at least paid lip service publicly.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
We are also free to note that 'official' historical data getting colder with each subsequent 'adjustment'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Don't lecture about what you don't understand.
The key numbers are the CO2/Water vapor positive feedback coefficient and the CO2/albedo negative feedback coefficient. Both are pulled from dark places and can make the models tell the modelers anything they want. They are responsible for the range of forecasts and really can't be validated with backcasting.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Or you realise that not all countries are equal,
You're just really pushing the arsehole case aren't you. Damn China for having a larger population. USA! USA! USA!
I'm done. I didn't make it past that comma in your first sentence, but I'm sure the rest of your post was equally as bullshit supremacist.
What government/NGO spends more to lobby (itself?) than the energy industry lobbyists?
The UK MET (lobbying "itself" via researchers like the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit or researchers involved with the IPCC). As to NGOs, there's the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace International.
Really? Chemical pollutants overlay, positioned so you can see China vs North America:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#...
or how about the whole rest of the world:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#...
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I don't think the speeding analogy is a fair illustration because there you are dealing with a clear law and two absolute, fixed values: 150mph vs 70mph. But tax valuation and fair market value are two different things. Also, I suspect the lowball figure is Trump's opening offer, subject to negotiation. Which is what you would expect from a sharp businessman.
Here is a helpful link: http://www.maxrealestateexposu...
Well, whatever your on preferences in this matter may be, it's not a scientific decision, which was my point. Hence, scientists are neither qualified nor empowered to make that decision.
You're an idiot. See? I can insult you too. Actually, I've been watching you for a while on Slashdot, and you don't say anything sensible.
Do you feel better? My point was, that there is no consensus on what should be done about climate change. You got caught up on a stupid argument on whether one scientist says coal should be phased out by 2030 or immediately. You proved that right, good job, but it's a side issue. You completely missed the major point.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If you believe that human-created carbon dioxide contributes, to global warming, as Muller does, then you are one of the 97% of scientists who believe the standard doctrine.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If you believe that human-created carbon dioxide contributes, to global warming, as Muller does, then you are one of the 97% of scientists who believe the standard doctrine.
Mr. Muller was willing, at the beginning of his research we are discussing, to consider the possibility that human-created carbon dioxide contributes to global warming. Is that a problem for you? If so, why?
As I understand it, upon examining the evidence, Mr. Muller is now convinced that this possibility is true. Is that a problem for you? If so, why?
Mr. Muller was willing, at the beginning of his research we are discussing, to consider the possibility that human-created carbon dioxide contributes to global warming. Is that a problem for you?
The problem is that you are misrepresenting his statements, probably on purpose. He fully believed that human-created CO2 contributes to AGW.
All I can say is: that's a mean pun.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Actually, it's ridiculously easy to "fuck with people when they've got weapons". Look at the number of Americans who get shot every year by friends, relatives, toddlers, dogs (yes, dogs) and just about anything else that can somehow manage to pull a trigger. The people fucking with you are the people making millions of the Americans' childish fascination with guns. And you love it.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I repeat from your own post:
Quote by Richard Muller, from the very article you linked to:
If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do)
Note the word may. He thinks that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute. How am I misrepresenting what Mr. Muller is saying?
And if he already was convinced 'that human-created CO2 contributes to AGW', what was the point of doing his own independent research to verify the work those 97% of scientists? The whole point of doing his own research was that he was sceptical, no?
as has already been pointed out in this thread there's terabytes and terabytes of data. After the initial fervor over a new study is over It's often stuffed on tape archives and the like. Available on request and with little fanfare.
I'll put it in nerd terms: Remember the crappy port of FF7 for PC? That's because square didn't keep the data around. This is like that, but since you can't emulate the environment we're all going to die of starvation because we didn't save the data needed to fix crap.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Is there a special be-dumb additive in the water?
No.
It's much easier to explain than an off-the-wall guess like that.
The fossil fuel industry is in its death throes and putting up a fight.
Your first clue would be Trump's proposed nomination for Secretary of State, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson.
The second would be his choice for Energy Secretary, former governor of Texas Rick Perry.
Third up: Head of EPA, Scott Pruitt.
So ... it's not the water.
It's the money.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
I'm not far behind you so no, that's no excuse. There has been so much bullshit thrown up over the subject over the years to "jazz up" the story, and like the carrots instead of radar thing it has stuck.
As I thought - you have nothing - take your propagandist bullshit to a fucking political site.
Good point about Kuwait etc.
However, does that change the situation where an improvement in the USA would be an improvement in a very large percentage of the total? I do not think it does and I think we are already seeing improvements as US cities move to better lighting and other forms of energy consumption reduction.
Cool, so who's going to fund my flat earth research?
Who's funding "round earth research" ?
The shape of earth is directly observable via photography from space.
Thus its shape is not so much a theory as a direct observation.
Or do you propose there is a phenomenon called Global Flattening,
where over time, the earth is becoming less and less round and more and more flat,
and this activity may be accelerated by human intervention, such as humans mining precious metals and sucking oil out from the middle, creating a future trend where you predict according to some model that earth's overall surface could tend to cave in like a popped balloon as we continue to suck its middles out?
Not your fault, but that dumbed down to the max link is fucking insulting BTW.
"Slavery" sure as goddam hell would be accurate.
What
The
Simple
Fuck?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
You're right.
It's not my fault that you're insulted.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Know what's more complicated than science?
Bullshit.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
This is just as short a piece that is a bit more accurate:
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5839933...
I don't think the speeding analogy is a fair illustration because there you are dealing with a clear law and two absolute, fixed values: 150mph vs 70mph. But tax valuation and fair market value are two different things. Also, I suspect the lowball figure is Trump's opening offer, subject to negotiation. Which is what you would expect from a sharp businessman.
It's also what you would expect from a conman.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
TL;DR
My post was short and legible.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.
It's pretty clear what he believed, and what he wanted to believe.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yes but dumbed down and inaccurate.
I don't understand all the fuss and what you are out to prove. The situation was definitely about politics, personal issues and an abuse of power which all had fuckall to do with religion or science.
Without further context these sentences look contradictory to me. Can you please provide a reference to the article where he wrote this?
Your cause is lost.
There were politicians at the time and Galileo wasn't a heretic so he could get elected or to piss off the manufacturers of the Ptolemaic model mobiles for sale at the hobby shop and put the geocentric craft out of business.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
He linked to it in the article you linked to. You can check it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
My cause? I just seem to be getting insulting for bringing up detail.
You're not being insulted.
You're being schooled.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
How? You have not mentioned a single thing I did not know?
You're not being insulted.
You're being schooled.
You did not know that.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Ah - I see being put in my place by a bully.
Thank you for reminding me of my "education" from more than four decades back. I really do not see why you bother.
I really do not see why you bother.
Because it's a forum where we bother.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Sounds kind of pathetic but fair enough.
Lobbying can be done for other reasons and certainly does not influence the electorate. You haven't shown that the lobbying in question is climate related. I'll also note that you or some AC who sounds remarkably like you, slid the goalposts over from a discussion of propaganda to lobbying.
But when we see donations to propaganda groups with an explicit orientation, either pro or con, then we have something to talk about. Here, as I noted earlier, the fossil fuel industry is vastly overspent by those governments and NGOs.
And Greenpeace International which is nearly pure propaganda spending has a budget of almost 240 million Euros.
This is just two people.
This is just two incredibly wealthy people who happen to be the largest donors in the very areas you mentioned in your link.
We also need to remember that Trump lives in the umpteenth floor of a skyscraper. So even in the worst case he will remain good and dry.
Riiiight. In the same way the CIA will assassinate five year olds who ask too many questions about Santa. Don't forget to wash your tin foil.
You know New Mexico has the word "new" in it, right? No one mistakes that state for New England.
Except if we're going down that pedantic road, plenty of Puritans settled in northern New York, as well. As most the state will tell you, New York doesn't begin and end with New York City.
Whereas the Democrats supporting action on climate change live in their government-insured multi-million dollar beach homes while their "green energy businesses" that do nothing to prevent climate change rake in billions in subsidies and "grants". Let's not forget that too.
Paying for research that backs up your position is advocacy. The problem is the oil companies did just that, except once their researcher looked at the data he agreed that climate change was real. Whoopsie doopsie.
The U.S. and Canada don't have any U.S. or Canadian oil companies, they're all international - otherwise the CIA would have had to overthrow their respective governments.
Complete dumbfuckery. The USG has an overwhelming bias towards fossil fuel production. The U.S. military is the world's single largest user of fossil fuels. The Arctic and the eastern seaboard have been opened for drilling. The son of the Vice President of the United States got a seat at Ukrainian energy company after the U.S. overthrew its democracy. Regime change has been attempted as well in another oil producing country (Venezuela) and in Syria (to build a pipeline). Use of force has been promised in the Middle East to keep the flow of oil moving, and fracking has been exported to the world.
And that's just under the tenure of the "liberal" President Obama.
These aren't 1 mb comma separated values files that can easily be shared between you and your Randian study group. A single dataset from a single study can take up terabytes of storage - and how are you going to ensure that none of it is tampered with? Try to copy Bitcoin's chain-of-custody verification process?
I'm not the one engaging in conspiracy theories so lame that they would have anti-vaxxers and lunar conspiracy theorists shaking their heads in disdain.
Correct, and that is something to keep in mind when the US government spends close to $10 billion on research related to climate change.
One part of the US government supports fossil fuel production and use, while another part hypes up fear about climate change, and yet another hands vast amount of money in subsidies to "alternative energy" companies. Those positions are contradictory as energy policy, but the goal of government isn't to have consistent and useful policies, it is to increase its own size and power.
You say that as if there were some contradiction; in fact, modern liberalism and crony capitalism go hand in hand.
You mean scientists got funding to do research, and after doing said research, they drew some conclusions based on the facts gathered. Same process by which scientists concluded that smoking & asbestos cause cancer, and lead paint causes birth defects.
So, ooloorie, do you hand your two year old a Camel while dressing her in asbestos pajamas, before putting her to bed in her lead-painted crib? Just to stick it to those librul scientists with an agenda, before you give her a glass of arsenic-laden drinking water in the morning.
If not, why not? What's the substantive difference between you and Jenny McCarthy?
No, I mean what I said: one part of the US government supports fossil fuel production and use, while another part hypes up fear about climate change, and yet another hands vast amount of money in subsidies to "alternative energy" companies. They have all been done at the same time by several administrations, including the Obama administration.
Being a "librul scientist" myself, no I don't, because I actually know better. You sound like you come from a progressive family, though, so there is a good chance that your parents did that to you, given that asbestos, lead paint, and city water supplies were the latest thing and fully approved by the government. Perhaps that explains some of your deficits.
She's a lot prettier than me. Oh, and I'm a scientist and don't believe vaccines cause autism. I'm also a liberal, however, which means that I respect her right to make her own choices even if I believe she is wrong. Liberalism, you should try it some time!
The Trump fans and the Trump haters will, once he's been in office office a while, be all disappointed and relieved to learn he wasn't all they had hoped and feared he was going to be, respectively.
Or maybe they'll both be disappointed. Seems like some of them really enjoy being afraid of The Next Hitler (sm).
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.