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!
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."
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.
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?
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/
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.
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).
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.
You mean like how it didn't happen in Australia or Canada?
When the incoming administrations starts issuing demands for the equivalent of a Jew List for climate and environmental scientists, are planning to gut earth science funding, appointing heads who have vendettas against all things climate and environment, etc. you have to be pretty fucking stupid not to see what the end goal is.
We've seen this shit before. We know exactly where it's going. That's why scientists are taking steps to make sure the data is saved and will still be available.
~X~
It's certainly not news. News is when something happens and you tell people, not when some excitable, self-involved people imagine something might happen and tell a story about what it might be like.
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?
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
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
Yes, it happened. The questionnaire is public record. After the outcry, the Trump transition team claimed it was "not authorized", which basically means they got caught and then pretended it didn't happen.
Claims of "fake news!!" are going to be harder for the Trump administration to make now that everything, including the tweets of Drumplethinskins himself are going to be public record by law.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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?
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.
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
Then why did the Trump transition team go all over the news in order to disavow the questionnaire and pretend that it was "unauthorized"?
Funny that of all the things that the Department of Energy spends money on, the one thing they want to know about is who spent money going to climate conferences. This from a guy who's charging the Secret Service millions just because his wife doesn't want to be anywhere near him.
http://www.redstate.com/jaycar...
You are welcome on my lawn.
He was given plenty of data, he just didn't like what it was saying so kept trying to get some more to his liking.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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
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.
Wikileaks would be the worst place to send it, given their recent actions.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
+1. The US is responsible for almost 30% of all the historical emissions :
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
Water vapor amplifies warming
https://www.google.ca/amp/phys...
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.
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.
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.
Yes, yes - the mainstream is bigger than the idiot fringe, just get over it.
Check out some uranium mining sites sometime
As opposed to a rare earth mine? Aren't they the same thing?
Wind and solar requires mining. They actually require more mining than nuclear power for the same energy output. Wind requires over 500 tons of steel and concrete for every MW of installed capacity, about ten times that of nuclear, coal, and gas.
Morgan Stanley did a study and concluded that to replace coal with wind worldwide would require 10 billion tons of steel and concrete annually. Current world wide production is 1.5 billion tons.
People have done the math and we simply do not have the resources to replace coal with wind and solar. A person's lifetime supply of energy would amount to a lump of uranium of about the size of a beer can. We'd certainly have to move a lot of rock to get that uranium but it'd be much less mining than digging up enough steel to make the windmills to get the same energy.
I have a feeling you didn't even watch the video.
There are other TED Talks on this where people have done the math, I'll have to link to more of them.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
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.
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
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.
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.
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