Slashdot Mirror
Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources Site No Longer Says Humans Cause Climate Change (theverge.com)
The website of Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources has been updated with new language and no longer says that humans and greenhouse emissions cause climate change. Instead, the site says that the causes of global warming "are being debated and researched by academic entities." The problem is that almost all climate scientists agree that human-made greenhouse gases are responsible for climate change, and that global warming is a big issue that needs to be addressed. Prior to the revision, the site said "human activities that increase heat-trapping ("green house") gases are the main cause." The Verge reports: DNR spokesperson Jim Dick told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel in an email that the "updated page reflects our position on this topic that we have communicated for years, that our agency regularly must respond to a variety of environmental and human stressors from drought, flooding, wind events to changing demographics." This does not address the question of why the new language implies that we do not know what causes climate change. This is the latest anti-environment move from Wisconsin's government, which has de-emphasized global warming since Republican Gov. Scott Walker took office in 2011. So far, Wisconsin is the only state that appears to be revising its website, but more states could follow suit now that it's clear climate science will be attacked under President-elect Donald Trump.
We know how to deal with their kind around here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I did not read the article, but the website does not say that the causes of "global warming" are being debated, just unspecified changes, of which global warming is only a portion. I doubt I need to point out also that global warming and climate change are not the same thing, but there you go.
In Florida, governor Rick Scott issued an edict that state employees can't say "climate change" or "global warming".
In Wisconsin, governor Scott Walker scrubs all mention of humanity's role in climate change from state websites.
From here on out, I'm not trusting anyone named Scott.
Good enough for me! Sounds like good, trustworthy science.
Yeah, we're raising the temperature. Whatever! It's the future generation's problem, not mine. In fact, I'll get to enjoy the in-between period of nice summer weather before it all goes to shit when I'm super old.
Bring on the destruction! Yippie!
If you repeat a lie long enough it becomes fact.
doesn't matter since the scientists have vote. They say it exists.
This is what happens when the news tries to show balanced coverage on a topic where there is so much scientific consensus on a topic. The broadcaster brings in a scientist who is an expert in the field to explain why they believe climate change is happening and they start to go on about probability which sounds like they really aren't that sure about it at all. In reality with the numbers they are reaching the scientists would most likely bet their homes on it. Yet in the "interest of balance" the broadcaster brings on the skeptic who works in a different field and talks in absolutes. So the viewer thinks that the issue is really much more like 50/50 and it's even worse because only the skeptic is convinced in their work.
If the news were to show you what the climate science was really like then you would rarely see a denier debating a scientist. Same thing for the vaccinations.
And if you think the scientists aren't trying to disprove climate change you can think again. They would all love to find out that man-made climate change was wrong because it would be an easy Nobel Prize for showing what it was.
of the Koch Bros I'm just wondering what took them so long.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The evidence doesn't come from models. It comes from measurements, specifically +++++++++++ of the ratios of Carbon 14, which is constant within the natural CO2 cycle, and Carbon 12 derived from fossil fuels. These measurements show that of the 750Gt of CO2 in the atmosphere, two thirds has come from burning C12. This is backed up by a corresponding reduction of oxygen in the air we breathe.
The stupid people are in charge now. It takes a special level of stupitidy to deny teh greenhouse effect.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
People have made up their mind and no amount of evidence could sway them, so why bother?
Reality or facts don't really matter anymore, do they? People won't believe anything that doesn't fit their personal reality bubble anyway, so why bother trying to convince them? Evidence doesn't matter anymore, especially in areas that are hard to understand in the first place and people are quite unwilling to learn.
I stopped trying and caring a long ago. I have no kids. I am old enough that any climate change will only hit big time after I'm long dead. Trash this planet any way you like, I don't give a shit anymore. If you can't be assed to care about your planet, why should I, and why should I try to make you care?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Untrue.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
If there's one variable that affects the Earth's climate, it's the output of the Sun. If there's a second variable that affects the Earth's climate, it's the kinematics of the Earth about the Sun. Neither should be considered constant. The real hoax was that climate is constant, predictable, and controllable. The real debate should be whether civilization is prepared for a unpredictable, Climate change alarmists are doubling down on more command and control.
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
Everybody believes in climate change. Progressive's think it started 100 years ago.
his backers just wanted something to change.
they will probably get their wish. sort of.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
... the incidents of brown noses is expected to rise dramatically after January 20, 2017.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Some douche canoe says weather != climate
The new statement is much more accurate and avoids making broad statements about causes or effects. I see nothing controversial in it:
"As it has done throughout the centuries, the earth is going through a change. The reasons for this change at this particular time in the earth's long history are being debated and researched by academic entities outside the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
The effects of such a change are also being debated but whatever the causes and effects, the DNR's responsibility is to manage our state's natural resources through whatever event presents itself; flood, drought, tornadoes, ice/snow or severe heat. The DNR staff stands ready to adapt our management strategies in an effort to protect our lakes, waterways, plants, wildlife and people who depend on them."
It's GOD! Let's GET HIM! Who else COULD IT BE!
Thank you Wisconsin. I do enjoy your cheese.
Five-Step Program to Greatness
1. Trump references the Wisconson website and takes credit for fixing climate change in a 3 am tweet.
2. Kellyanne Conway goes on Sunday talk shows to deny climate change exists.
3. Trump doubles down and claims the Clintons created the problem with all that darned economic growth in the 90s.
4. Putin publicly thanks Trump and Exxon for helping him annex climate change.
5. America is somehow great again.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
before the sea level rise reaches Wisconsin
You attribute way too much power to the president. The banking cartel calls most of the shots, with the rest called by a few other industry cartels.
Things will be fine under Trump. Just chill out. You can't control the world, and life will be easier to cope with if you don't try.
I hear it's pretty cold this time of year in 'Sconsin to be standing in line for unemployment benefits.
There people here and also in the Faculty Senate at the "U" who simply won't be happy until we are all reduced to eating birdseed, pedaling to work in the snow, and having the lights flicker on or off depending on how hard the wind is blowing.
People don't want that. We like our rich diet powered by Wisconsin dairy cows and enjoy driving our SUVs, powered by fuel liberated from the ground by good ol' Wisconsin frack sand that you see trundling off to Williston in railroad hopper cars.
Look, people, this whole "fracking" business is the outcome of the government or government-sponsored research. And the boom in natural gas is replacing coal and achieving significant greenhouse gas emission reductions that way.
But go ahead, speak "truth to power", scold the people who control your tuition rates and ever diminishing state support with "if you repeat a lie long enough it becomes a fact." Yes, call the Governor a liar. Maybe he is, but forget about political compromise (such as fracked natural gas as a less greenhouse gas-emitting solution). Call the Governor a liar, and an ignoramus, and an Enemy of the Environment. Keep true to your principles, don't give an inch, and remind yourself of your righteousness when the whole University falls apart.
http://climatechangedispatch.c...
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
So we'll finally get some sort of truth about climate instead of the nonsense these liars have been spouting for 20 years.
Do you recall how 1934 used to be the hottest year ever? Suddenly it isn't. Not because more recent years are hotter but because they changed the fucking temperature data for 1934 to produce a nice smooth hockey stick.
Liars. All liars.
The website has not changed. It has always said that.
We have always been at war with the Mujahideen, and allies of Glorious Comrade Putin.
Climate researchers massaged data with buggy code, then deleted the original data.
Much more worrying was the reaction of the scientific community to the exposure of the undisclosed data and fudged reports. Instead of criticizing their behaviour, they almost universally rallied around them and defended their actions, just like they had earlier defended the wild exaggerations in the first IPCC report. Science needs more integrity and less groupthink.
Apparently some climatologists are convinced that exaggeration and alarmism are justified to push the public into action. But by eroding their own credibility, they are having the opposite effect. Climate Change is an important issue, and needs to be taken seriously by everyone.
It is beyond my capacity to grasp that anyone can be such a coward or married to an idiotic philosophy that they simply can not face truth. We are, right now, in huge trouble due to the global warming that has already occurred and we know full well that it is going to get much worse. Our weather is destroying our ability to raise crops and livestock, our oceans are almost lifeless and we are being contaminated with all kinds of poisons that wreck health and rob people of their lives. Many of these nay sayers can accept the fact that termites have a big influence on environment and that algae also is a big player, yet somehow they fail to be able to face off against the fact that humans are having massive impacts on every facet of nature including temperatures in our air and in our waters. People fear that they, or their lifestyle, will be lessened, displaced or eliminated. Somehow that fear causes them to become a mob of brain dead fools. That in turn assures that their lives and lifestyles will fall even faster and deeper.
"i really don't care what most scientists think,"
Guess who isn't in ANY field, ANY of them? YOU aren't!
And who/what's fault is that. There really isn't that much that needs to be known. It's not really that hard to grasp the concept of greenhouse gasses. Of course, they did a lousy job of educating people in the years of their lives they were in K-12. Remedial education is in order. Maybe even medication. Though health and mental health is also something that a poor job has been done on.
Forget Trump. Well not exactly. He't not really that much better or worse than any of our regular crop of office-seekers. They are all actually shrouded in a cloud of mystery, Trump included. In fact, I take exception to the concept of "conflict of interest". I also take exception to the notion that a republic is in any way clearly any better than the results to be had at the hands of a direct democracy. We need to be doing far more studying of the situation we are in than we have been. We are still fearful of shadows, to the extent that we are more fearful of them then actual problems.
Why don't you spend some more time reading up on this and the many investigations into this so-called controversy that were dismissed because of a lack of substance. Here's a link linking to the final reports for some of the investigations: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html
I know you wont read them.... or spend any time thinking about this because it will take effort. It is embarrassing that so many can trust the science behind their computer, behind flight, behind the opinion of their doctors (which should be based on evidence) but then spend so much effort trying not to believe the science coming from another branch of the same profession...like they are any different. The idea that thousands of scientists around the world are acting jointly in a mass conspiracy is patently absurd!
I look forward to your parroting of same old line about how their funding will dry up, or about much money they make off the government (surprise..... I know lots of scientists and for the most part they don't make great money for the hours they work) or how climate is always changing or how thousands of scientists didn't realize that the sun's output might have changed or that some pastor or politician has better insight into the workings of the world than the people who spend their lives studying it. But before you do reply humor me...do the world a favor and spend some time to look at your beliefs, research them (from all obvious angles...not the same three websites), and get an informed opinion!
The answer to your next post is no you have not researched your current opinion
Thought /. was a tech news website of sorts, when did it start worrying about redundant politics?
Climate change is creating new challenges in our ability to raise crops and livestock. Certain conditions are making areas harder to do agriculture in and there are others in which it may be becoming easier. Our understanding of the world around us is growing and while there are some missteps, we are gaining in technology to overcome those challenges. Some of us argue that the only way forward is to go back in certain areas.
I have yet to hear that the entirety of our oceans are lifeless, merely that there are dead zones. We can study and reverse the situation. More importantly though is that aquaculture is a thing.
I want us to take control of our reality and ourselves. Some people just want to be wild, though.
Your message was better stated in the original script:
"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."
...they've just started that campaign against "Fake News"?
-Styopa
With attacks come more succinct and concise rebuttals, more obvious proofs, etc. Bring it on.
EPA changes fracking report after Trump win.
http://www.therebel.media/epa_...
This CAGW scare has been political from the start.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Well, at least NASA's site still says its humans.
see here
and to be honest I think more people would trust NASA than the State of Wisconsin or whatever.
To be honest I'm a little surprised and a lot pleased that the NASA site clearly lays out its humans that are the cause. Yeah, yeah, we'll see what happens with the new administration, but no matter what a lot of Slashdotters think I still have a lot of respect for the individual scientists and engineers at NASA.
"You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
Fuck. Donald. Trump.
A few years back I looked into global warming to find out if it was real. The thing that threw me off was that the vostok ice core data in the original 1999 report showed that CO2 ROSE AFTER the temperature went up and FELL AFTER the temperature went down. They fixed the data in the later reports to not show this relationship, but I knew something was screwy. Here's a good article on the evidence that NOAA is faking their data for political purposes:
http://realclimatescience.com/...
The other thing that also is funny is that the answer to global warming is always a global carbon tax or cap and trade, which is essentially a new petrodollar since all carbon credits are payed for in dollars so the us government can buy unlimited carbon credits for its favored industry while other countries have to get our dollars somehow to be able to burn fossil fuels. It's a great way to run an empire and control Russia's power as a leading oil exporter. So I eee the reasons for letting all the useful idiots to believe all this stuff, but for us critical thinkers it's pretty obvious it's a ingenious scam.
The trolls are out in full force on this one. After all these years (decades) they still confuse the science (which will never be "settled", that's not how science should (and often does) work) with the POLICY. ("they" being both the pro-CC and the anti-CC (or should I say anthropogenic global warming?). I wonder how many here agree that ideally, our policies surrounding this question should reflect the science (scientific evidence)? The people who don't haven't much to contribute, as far as I'm concerned. On the other hand, the pro-CC morons would be willing to literally wreck the economy in order to reduce potential warming by 0.1 - the ridiculous Kyoto Treaty is a prime example - and note: its policy, not science. The biggest problem with AGW is that CO2 directly contributes so little - it's a trace gas in the atmosphere (tell that to the plants!). Its effect on the net global energy balance is due to its indirect (i.e. non-linear) effects (mostly). Which increases accurate models' complexity enormously. In the period 1990-1995, the pro-CC scientists were saying that climate is not meaningful for periods less than 20 years. Now they (a lot of them are the same people) as blaming a particular hurricane or drought on it - or should I say the media is extracting that sort of lame claim out of them? Anyway, its a moving target with their 2050 estimates decreasing with every IPCC report issued, and their own models constantly changing. I concluded long ago that their models were too incomplete to be relied upon. I forget, its 20x or 50x, the amount of energy stored in the Oceans compared to the atmosphere, yet when they speak publicly about CC, its always surface (air) temperature. And after over a decade of stalling temperatures, suddenly it's the oceans or its an artifact of the measurement statistics. I can't tell you if they've got a model which accounts for every sink or source which involves (globally) at least 5% or 10% of the energy attributed to CO2. I suspect they don't. Without that, their models are justifiably suspect. (For instance, the science of particulate formation and destruction, as well as their effect on IR (emr, in general) transmission and reflection is poorly constrained, and yet it has a major effect on Earth's heat balance. I'm a CC skeptic, and yet I also tentatively accept the consensus science as being the best we have, and to the extent that it's sufficient to show that delay is more expensive than implementation now, we should have policies in place to act now. In the book Freakonomics, it was pointed out that assuming the global total GDP continues to grow at the rate it has historically, then few of the economic consequences of CC should be addressed now - its better for our grandchildren (who will be much richer than we are today) to spend more (in constant dollars) to fix the climate then than it is for us to defer spending more directly tied to economic growth to alleviate CC now, simply because they'll be much more able to afford it. This thread does nothing to persuade me that the audience here is any more interested in having the best science inform our policy debate, than the average high-school drop-out. pro-CCers overstate the evidence and then pretend that their policy "solutions" are science, and the anti-CC crowd cherry picks their "facts". Same old, same old. Well, at least under Trump, we'll know that the Federal Government isn't interested in the facts.
the site says that the causes of global warming "are being debated and researched by academic entities."....The problem is that almost all climate scientists agree
It seems like maybe the real problem is you don't understand what science is, or the definition of "almost all"?
It's funny, I thought you guys on the statist left hated the Electoral College, yet here you are saying that a plurality of scientists saying one thing makes it absolute fact with no room for debate.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Always be closing" my friend. Always be closing.
The causes of global warming "are being denied by trolls paid by the fossil fuel industry and researched by academic entities."
Hanlon's Razor applies.
Keep in mind that there are millions of Americans who believe it doesn't matter because of rapture.
Since you refuse to look at the evidence for yourself, the eight major investigations that cleared CRU of any scientific misconduct include:
- House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact"
- Independent Climate Change Review: "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
- International Science Assessment Panel: "We found absolutely no evidence of impropriety whatsoever"
- Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel: "Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community"
- United States Environmental Protection Agency: CRU critics came to "faulty scientific conclusions" and "resorted to hyperbole."
- Department of Commerce: "We did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures"
- National Science Foundation: "We found no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence."
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Spoken like a dimwitted German circa 1933.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Apparently some climatologists are convinced that exaggeration and alarmism are justified to push the public into action. But by eroding their own credibility,
You seem to miss the fact that climate change researchers and the IPCC are downplaying their predictions and concerns since decades to "not sound alarmist".
That is why we get more concerned voices lately because the "scientific community" does not longer want to downplay it.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
However, it did criticise the university's climate scientists for their lack of openness with regard to complying with Freedom of Information requests.
It also said the CRU was too quick to dismiss critics from outside its own circles.
You seem to miss the fact that climate change researchers and the IPCC are downplaying their predictions and concerns since decades to "not sound alarmist".
The first IPCC report did not downplay anything. Subsequent reports may have, possibly in an attempt to re-establish some credibility. But scientists should not be be downplaying, exaggerating, or anything else to hide or twist the facts. They should be seeking and reporting the unbiased truth.
The thing about "almost all" is it destroys research. The idea that someone will be ridiculed if "almost everyone" thinks the exact opposite of what they have come to believe or what might be shown from their research means they will play along with it. Stop saying "almost all climate scientists agree" - it's not true. People rarely agree about anything and scientists least of all (Hell, there are thousands of competing and conflicting theories in the realm of superconductivity alone and there are actually a lot of experiments to back up that field, rather than data retroactively edited nearly every year.)
A bunch of academics found no fault with a bunch of academics. W o W
If you agree with the consensus, it seems really stupid to me to really harp on scientists. Should we be looking at politicians or religious leaders to lead by example here, or?
"Old man yells at systemd"
Rapture has already started for celebrities!
Stop and think for a moment.
You have already reached your conclusion, and you will only accept a change to that conclusion (if even then) should someone with a vested interest in YOUR OWN CONCLUSION says it isn't so.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/playli...
It's about the best available evidence.
People clearly misunderstand this because they keep saying things like "Scientists used to believe X, but now they believe Y," as proof that scientists don't have the capital-T Truth. And they're right. They're just missing the point. The problem with Truth is that it's inaccessible. Unless you're God, you're missing big parts of it. Mortals don't have the Truth, we only have evidence, and not all the evidence there is.
So you have to decide what is the best basis for making decisions that affect society as a whole, the one that appeals to your gut feelings about the Truth, or the one supported by the best evidence we have so far. Sure evidence based policy means you have to change your mind sometimes; but not knowing everything isn't the moral equivalent of knowing nothing.
As for "consensus", well, that's not what people think it is either. It's not a declaration of truth, it's a general agreement as to where the burden of proof lies. If you want to claim that humans hunted T. Rex you're going to need very strong evidence to back that up. Someone who claims T. Rex was extinct before humans doesn't need to back that up at all. It's discrimiantion, but it's fair and reasonable discrimination. Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence.
It doesn't matter what a scientist believes, it only matters what he can prove. That's why it's a bad idea to go shopping for a scientist who believes what you want to be true: chances are you'll find one. Science used this way has no probative value. Of course you can argue against the scientific consensus as a basis for public policy if you want, but to show that that is rational you'll need to provide justification for why your preferred scientist is right, and that means seriously studying the field so you can mount the same kind of technical critique of evidence that a professional in the field could. Otherwise you're just scientist shopping.
The opinion of the overwhelming majority of experts working in the field may not be God's-own-Truth, but it's the best starting place for policy. It has at least the benefit that it can't tell you whatever you want to hear.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If you're a billionaire you can pretty much do what you want with enough trolls on social media. To quote George Orwell:
He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.
Recent ignorance towards human driven climate change is stupid and money will probably not fix the damage.
Why UNIX?
The models reflect the historical climate accurately.
So there is a very high probability that those same models predictions of future climate are also reasonably accurate.
They use all that data to build and test the models.
You read armchair conspiracy nuts rantings on a field they don't even understand, much less have a decade or more of professional experience in.
Over 90% of the worlds climatologists agree on Global Warming, and that's amazing! If you put 4 scientists from virtually any field together in one room, they'll almost always start arguing. That's part of their jobs! Yes, arguing with each other. They do it more politely and professionally than their neighbors, but they try to tear down everyones ideas. Those ideas only stand if they can withstand the intellectual assault.
Global Warming has been standing for a VERY long time despite so many people, not the least of which is the climatologists themselves, trying to knock it down.
And you're relying on some bozo that hasn't even earned a degree in climatology.
That's just wow. You should really learn how to vet your sources.
Putin and his sanctions-busting minions are out in full force today, which makes it like every other day. Who needs fake news when you can instantly blackhole rational discussion?
Insightful snarky comment? Gotta mod that shit into oblivion before it catches on! When I comment mid-stream, I easily earn 15 mod points for insight. Post first in a discussion on climate change? Instant karma destruction. This is why I rarely bother commenting anymore.
It isn't Slashdot's fault—though poor summary editing doesn't help inspire discussion. It isn't even the fault of regular commenters. The old crew is still here and trying our best. No, the fault lies squarely with the paid trolls. If you dare seek the truth of the scientists paid to deny the science of climate change, cancer from smoking, the ozone hole and more, watch Merchants of Doubt. Where you suspect the scientists studying climate change of being a secretive society bent on profiting from false science, you'll find a true industry paid to flat out deny actual science without evidence. But it's not even their fault. They were sold on anti-Communism and are acting out of a belief that addressing climate change will kill capitalism.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Fuck you, 2016! Seriously, fuck off and die. And die. And die. And die.
You are lying about being a paid shill that is for sure. See I can shout unsubstantiated claims about lying without any evidence just like you. Have a nice day shill.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
And fuck my grandma. And fuck everybody's fucking grandma. Fuckin fuck fuck fuckity shit cunt Sir Fuckacunt fuckin FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHK!
Fuck a duck fuckin grandma fuckers!
FUCK IT!
FUCKIN THING SUCKS!
FUCK IT WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
You see, with a majorities across the board in the republican camp, climate science is about to be de-funded. Thus climate conjecture is about to become extinct for four or eight years. Perhaps even longer as the democrat party seems to be falling from failure due to their disconnect from their base.
Anyone who is the slightest bit pragmatic and objective knows well that the doom and gloom scenarios some "climate scientists" pushed could NEVER be proven. Most of us realized that the real problem is pollution, and not carbon dioxide. Still, others are true believers who kept the faith after these predictions of doom were proven wrong by time, time and time again.
Now, grab a bag of popcorn, slather it in butter and watch with me as we watch these "scientists" produce whatever results are required to maintain funding.
Now there is some integrity, huh?
This is more of an addendum to the just-above msg, than a reply.
Fact One: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It is more transparent to frequencies of visible light than frequencies of infrared light.
Fact Two: The total content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing as a result of human activities. The two largest sources are the burning of fossil fuels, and the production of concrete.
Fact Three: The exact amount of greenhouse effect of existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is unknown. We only know that it must be some magnitude greater than zero. See Fact One.
Fact Four: Adding still-more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can only increase the existing greenhouse effect. See Fact One.
Question: On what basis could it be called a "good thing" to keep increasing the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
We can deny the reality of, well, reality as much as we like, but it is still reality. Climate change is real, and humans being the cause is real, even if it makes you uncomfortable.
BTW: The subject line is the motto of Galileo Academy of Science and Technology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Academy_of_Science_and_Technology) - according this is what Galileo said on the way out, after having been ordered to deny that Earth moves around the Sun: "And yet it moves".
Climate change is happening, and that is of course a fact nobody is denying at this day and age. I personally do not know what is causing it. It seems as if it is caused mostly by human actions, and this is what I get from the media. But how many of us have actually read any of these research papers? I think it's dangerous that the masses are being told that we should believe climate change is caused by man simply because the "consensus among scientists" is pointing to that direction. I believe it when I read it from credible sources, and maybe I'll go and read right now. But don't believe the consensus, which throughout the history has proven to be blatantly wrong.
One thing in my mind is good whether or not climate change is happening mostly due to humans: banning the use of fossil fuels. Banning the use of fossil fuels and whether or not climate change is caused by humans should be considered two completely different issues whether they correlate or not. Fossil fuels are not a sustainable source of energy and cause all kinds of health problems, and thus should not be used any more. I think we should start agreeing at least on the fact that fossil fuels are bad, and then after we've tackled that problem, maybe there's even more concrete evidence that links them to climate change. Or maybe by then the climate is cooling down already as a consequence and this helps prove the link.
kill ALL republicans
kill ALL democrats
The lengths we as a species go to uncover new depths to our sleaziness is mind-boggling.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
The website has not changed. It has always said that.
We have always been at war with the Mujahideen, and allies of Glorious Comrade Putin.
"Welcome to Kansas - At Least We're Not Wisconsin...Oh, wait..."
Ideally leaders have to rely on the integrity of the advisers. If advisers turn out to be providing advise based on questionable data then...
the monsters in the closet won't appear.
Climate change is happening, and that is of course a fact nobody is denying at this day and age.
Oh yes, people are denying it happens. Plenty do, especially republicans, and those who don't deny it is caused by humans activity.
I personally do not know what is causing it.
Scientists know: mainly greenhouse gases, released by human activities.
It seems as if it is caused mostly by human actions, and this is what I get from the media. But how many of us have actually read any of these research papers? I think it's dangerous that the masses are being told that we should believe climate change is caused by man simply because the "consensus among scientists" is pointing to that direction. I believe it when I read it from credible sources, and maybe I'll go and read right now. But don't believe the consensus, which throughout the history has proven to be blatantly wrong
The scientific consensus is a credible source. It can be wrong but the good thing about science is that it quickly correct itself and isn't afraid to change its hypothesis when they are proven wrong. Considering the amount of research in climate science, this consensus being wrong is extremely unlikely. Same thing as evolution.
Also, if that's not enough for you, you can, as you said, go read the research papers. Or if you don't want to skim through thousands of them, you can read the meta research papers, agreggating the aformentionned papers. I did, you can too. Until you do, your opinion on the subject has no value.
One thing in my mind is good whether or not climate change is happening mostly due to humans: banning the use of fossil fuels. Banning the use of fossil fuels and whether or not climate change is caused by humans should be considered two completely different issues whether they correlate or not. Fossil fuels are not a sustainable source of energy and cause all kinds of health problems, and thus should not be used any more. I think we should start agreeing at least on the fact that fossil fuels are bad, and then after we've tackled that problem, maybe there's even more concrete evidence that links them to climate change. Or maybe by then the climate is cooling down already as a consequence and this helps prove the link.
By your argument, we should also disbelieve the consensus that fossil fuels are bad for health. Did you read any research paper on it? No? Thought so, we need more research, no need to do anything now.
No, we don't need prgamatism or more evidence, the link between greenhouse gases and global warming is proven as surely as the link between breathing fossil fuel emissions and bad health. And even we agreed that the consensus had a high chance of being wrong, it would also have a significant chance of being right, and its the models show that if we don't act quickly and drastically, we risk triggering chain reactions and go past the point of no return.
That is, if we aren't already past it. The thawing tundra is already leaking greenhouse gases.
Should we try to act based on the scientific consensus, or should we not do anything because science has an insignificantly low chance of being wrong?
Also, I'm interested to know your position on vaccines. Should we stop using them to see if autism declines?
A bunch of academics found no fault with a bunch of academics.
Yours is the worst kind of tribalistic nihilism.
The idea that "academics" is a singular group that are so dedicated to supporting their tribe that they would brook no dissent is a recipe for denying any and all evidence that you disagree with.
Its also a confession of character — that you will not accept any dissent that goes against the orthodoxy of whatever tribe you believe yourself to be a part of, regardless of the truth. So now that you've admitted to being intellectually dishonest, why should we trust anything you say?
When Muller was going to look into the data, deniers like the OP were going to accept what Muller found, no matter what. And Muller had a vested interest in doing so: fame and getting back at Mann. When Muller said that it was vlid, that he now agreed that the warming is taking place as said, deniers like the OP refused to accept that conclusion and insisted that Muller was NEVER actually a skeptic, and was bought and paid for by the conspiracy all along.
We have no evidence that people like the OP will ever change their conclusion, except when they're told their conclusion is right.
You seem to miss the fact that climate change researchers and the IPCC are downplaying their predictions and concerns since decades to "not sound alarmist".
The first IPCC report did not downplay anything. Subsequent reports may have, possibly in an attempt to re-establish some credibility. But scientists should not be be downplaying, exaggerating, or anything else to hide or twist the facts. They should be seeking and reporting the unbiased truth.
I agree with you, but imagine this situation:
You are in a train speeding up constantly on a circular track, You start researching the situation and realize that if it continues like that, the train will fall over, people will die and be wounded.
You make a nice neutral exposé with facts and start telling people, saying that we show at least stop speeding up, and probably speed down, but most people in the train don't give a fuck, plenty of them actually like speeding up. You try to tell the drivers, but they don't care much either. Worse, that fat rich guy who bought enough airbags and health insurance to survive the crash start paying the drivers to ignore you, and start paying people to spread rumors dicrediting you and your research.
You continue to try conving people, and you actually manage to convince some. Other people do research and reach the same conclusions, yet the rich guy continues his effort to keep the train speeding, the drivers mostly don't give a shit either. Time pass, the train lifted some of its wheels, and some people actually fell off and died.
The train is still speeding up. At that point, it's no surprise if you start sounding alarming and add in big red "WE WILL ALL DIE IF WE DON'T SLOW!" in your exposé.
A bunch of academics found no fault with a bunch of academics. W o W
You know what is the dream of any scientist? Have their name immortalized in History next to Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Euler, Curie, Mendeleev, etc.
You know how to do it? You prove the scientific consensus is wrong. If scientists could prove the current theories on climate change are wrong, they'll be all over it.
We can and should make fossil fuel companies pay TRILLIONS of dollars IMMEDIATELY! This is because that's what they ALREADY OWE US for the damage they have done and which we could use to try to correct some of that damage.
"What if there's 1% chance they are innocent?" What a crock of shit! They are guilty as hell and they know it.
And BTW, the state executes black men with less certainty than we have for human causes of global warming. It's only because your politicians are owned by fossil fuel companies that there's even a speck of resistance to the repair work we have to do to keep the Earth habitable by humans.
FFS Slashdot! Eject all these tards and get back to rationality!
>A bunch of academics found no fault with a bunch of academics. W o W
If you ever went to scientific conference, you should know that most of academics are very satisfied when they burn other academics. But they are doing this with a scientific approach.
All scientific models are flawed. Doesn't mean they aren't useful. Newton's theories and models are flawed, yet are still quite useful and lead to discoveries.
Models can never take everything into account, but they are gradually refined. I'm pretty sure climate models have been updated to take your criticism into account.
You don't have to 'trust' academics. You can read the reports yourself, look at the emails themselves, and determine whether the reports make sense, or whether the misconduct actually seems bad. To me, threatening to 'change peer review' to keep out papers you don't like is prima facie bad.
Blind trust is academics (or anyone) is foolish.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There are climate scientists and honest people on one side and climate deniers, retards and vested interests on the other side.
We are utterly doomed if we can't shake off this collection of deniers, retards and leeches!
So, are you an honest person? If so, you have to act! Challenge the next slimebag that says there's any "debate" about this. Claim your right to a future. Shut down the scumbags who are destroying our future for their short term private gain.
You don't understand that agreeing is losing in science.
We should have realized something was wrong when Abe Vigoda died.
The scientific consensus is overwhelmingly pretty strong on humanity's contributions. The problem is that the question has become politicized. The data are there and pretty well explained for anyone willing to take the time.
It should be a hint that political leanings tend to correlate with denial. You'll also find a curious cross-over with denial of evolution. These tend to be more conservative-leaning. This of course doesn't mean that left-leaning people are correct for the right reasons. Plenty of people agree with the scientific consensus yet can't even explain the basics. Thankfully, reality isn't a democracy. We need to stop electing people who put personal beliefs before evidence and expert advice.
What is the difference between "consensus among experts in the field" and "credible sources"?
Or is your definition of "credible source" Fox News?
Blind trust in academics (or anyone) is foolish.
Hold on. The "sceptics" are mainly Conservative, Conservatives in this country are generally proudly, loudly, religious (Christian, not one of them heathen "religions"), And it's an old saying in religious circles that "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
Oh wait...
Looks to me like somebody is going for a higher-paid job in Trumps brave new administration.
No sig today...
You are saying Iraq is not Bush's fault?
Hold on. The "sceptics" are mainly Conservative
And the believers are mainly liberal. Liberals are the ones who think Russia literally hacked our voting machines. What difference does it make whether one side is liberal or conservative? The only thing that matters is the science, not who 'believes' what.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If you'd bothered looking at any of those links, you'd have seen that half of them are to statements by government organizations that are filled with politicians and bureaucrats which are about as far from academics as you can get.
that's right.
its all a conspiracy by the world's academics to make the world a better place by reducing pollution.
thank god we have you to save us from them.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Is it really that simple? Just ignore facts and deny reality and all problems go away? Maybe the ignorant Republicans are on to something...
Tribalism rarely rears its ugly head in academia to the extent you see it in other disciplines and industries. The colleague and confidant of the academic is knowledge, other humans are a tool to converse with knowledge. Knowledge is their "tribe" more than the people they work with.
Not saying tribalism doesn't show up from time to time, but it's not like finance buddies protecting finance buddies.
So would it be better to haul them in front of a Leninist peoples' court and then have them shot?
Err, no. That's a working hypothesis without any evidence. Of course some scientists are busy trying to manufacture the evidence, mostly by jerking off historical data.
Classic defense: there are no evidence, and the existing evidence is falsified. Well, if you don't want to see the evidence, you won't see it. Stop listening to what people who have no idea about climate science are telling you, go look at the data yourself in scientific papers.
Sure humans have a huge impact. But when the other side goes full communist on your ass then you start to ignore even the good science.
The first IPCC report did not downplay anything...
It looks like the projections from the first IPCC report were pretty darn good. Of course, this was published in 2013. A lot has happened since then that may make the projections look a little on the low side.
I think you missed the point
It will suffer the affects of Climate Change more than the coastal states even with the problem of the oceans rising.
Question: On what basis could it be called a "good thing" to keep increasing the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
I'll take a stab at this. I believe climate change is happening, is man-made, and will cause widespread problems over the next century. I believe we should stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
However, in terms of earth's entire history, we're in a very low-CO2 period. (See the graph here http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...)
If I were to play devil's advocate, I'd express concern that Earth has been slowly sequestering its CO2 stores, and may not stop until it's all gone. The graph certainly seems to imply that, and intuitively it makes sense. It is more likely for organic matter to be permanently buried than for buried matter to be returned to the atmosphere. Meteor strikes and volcanic action are the only ones I can think of.
Potential benefits of higher CO2 and temperatures (benefits for non-human ecosystems, that is) are faster plant growth and further distribution of rainwater as there are more hurricanes and storm-intensity rises in general.
Last post!
Most of the land on earth is in the northern latitudes. This area is mostly under snow and ice. As it warms up, the extent of arable and farmable land goes up.
Don't ask stupid rhetorical questions. There are good things that can happen, even if the bad outweighs them by 100s of times. Sorta like UBI, sounds like a really good idea, except for the fact that those who already own assets will find they are worth less and will just increase the costs since the supply of money has gone up. If a person owns a bunch of houses and rents them out, and the tenants suddenly get more money, they can just increase the rents proportionally. Doesn't mean its not good, bad, or otherwise, just that you can't ignore inconvenient arguments.
A degree in climatololgy. Exactly what the best and the brightest seek to achieve..
it's actually ok and cool to call for those that disagree with you to be summarily executed now?
I think it's dangerous that the masses are being told that we should believe climate change is caused by man simply because the "consensus among scientists" is pointing to that direction.
You shouldn't. "Scientific consensus" is misleading because it's the wrong phrase. Scientists didn't get together and agree that green is the best color. That's utter nonsense and shouldn't be accepted by anyone. Rather, climatologists have arrived at a consilience of evidence. Many varied experiments have converged to the same result, over and over and over again.
* Green paint in hospitals correlates to faster healing of patients. .
* Students in classrooms with green chairs achieve better test scores.
* Football teams wearing green jerseys win more games.
* Tax forms filled out in green ink are audited less often by the IRS.
* Moths with green spots on their wings produce more offspring.
* . .
As the evidence from more and more experiments point to the same conclusion, we don't need detailed models of how many points green walls will shave off the recidivism of parolees—and if the model predicts 2.1729 but we measure 2.1726 it's wrong. Rather, it has simply become utterly clear that green is the superior color. Not because painters took a vote but because the evidence is overwhelming.
As an aside, the model for the strength gravity will only be accurate at one specific altitude, and even then will vary across the surface of the Earth due to the thickness of the crust and the density of magma beneath it. Your exacting requirement for proof of climate change would stop you from leaving your house in the morning if applied to gravity for fear of spontaneously flying off into outer space.
Get a grip, literally!
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Keep in mind that there are millions of Americans who believe it doesn't matter because of rapture.
That's quite a large claim to make - which probably explains your down-mod. I did a search for this.
Can you provide a link showing that the reasons millions of Americans don't believe in global warming is due to the rapture?
The new text says the DNR's job is to shepard the state's natural resources through whatever climate changes happens.
Understanding the cause and doing things to limit it appear to be for others.
That seems not quite correct.
If and when science agrees on something useful that DNR could do, then it is probably their responsibility to do it.
These are probably things that they would do anyway, like not deforesting all of the land in their control.
The time may come when DNR needs to limit economic activity on their lands.
It seems to me that their job is to judge what science their is against the economic benefit.
I suspect DNR is doing their job and saying that at this point in time, the science does not call for adjustments to their existing management strategy?
A proper scientific debate is a wild ride.
Some sort of smoothing function is required between the scientific theories of the day and long term management strategies.
Perhaps in this case, DNR is that smoothing function?
This. If scientists discovered that [problem X] was no longer a major concern, they would devote their attention to something else.
But oh no, major conspiracy, scientists have vested interests in maintaining a lie for the sake of their careers. BULLSHIT. Scientists are very much interested in the truth. They are trained to seek it, uncover it, present it, and call their colleagues on any attempts to hide it.
The problem is that scientists discover things that are very uncomfortable for certain interests who have lots of money at stake. And those interests spend their money on attempting to discredit what scientists discover.
Scientists are people too, with the same egos, prejudices, fears, and irrational beliefs the rest of us have. Ideally, through honest application of their work, they can filter out these human elements and present to the rest of us objective facts. However, I think any of us who are widely read and have been paying attention know that there is quite a lot of 'standard' human behavior that occurs in scientific circles.
So, perhaps they are trained as you say, but one cannot claim they act as they are trained in a fully consistent manner. So no, scientists aren't some breed of ultra-rational super humans. Stop pretending someone is above suspicion just because they claim the title 'scientist.'
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
What evidence do you have to support your claim? Have you done any studies on climate change? Do you have a model to back up what you say? Please publish it if you do so we won't be so worried about the changing climate.
I've read about the science from reputable sources and I have somewhat of a science background myself but even if I didn't believe in that, my own common sense suggests that it's more than likely that climate change is real. Why would I think that? We're burning millions of tonnes of fossil fuels everyday that nature has locked away in our planet for millions of years. Fossil Fuels in nature isn't remotely being produced at the same rate, our entire human species hasn't even remotely been around that long and somehow out of some miracle releasing that much carbon into the atmosphere by some miracle isn't have some effect? It's like saying oh well I'll just cut down the whole forest, it grows back right, no loss? The amount of energy Fossil Fuels release is incredible, I'm sure you've heard or thought of the expression you can't move mountains. Well the truth is we can and we do, thanks to this "cheap" energy, our mining equipment can actually move mountains. The problem is nothing is truly "cheap", there's always a cost even if we can't directly see it.
I also dislike the folks who panic and say the world is ending. The world isn't going to end with climate change but it's going to get expensive and uncomfortable for us. For my city it already has, they've had to spend millions for upgrading the storm sewer system to deal with a massive increase in nasty downpours in the last few years to hopefully prevent flooding and while yes I'm sure we've had this sort of flash flooding before, I've lived here long enough to notice that it seems to be an increasing trend. No amount of no it's not happening is going to save folks from being flooded. It's ended up putting the city in debt but no one thinks of it that way. All folks argue about is how taxes are going up.
I guess you only accept MSNBC, Huffington Post, CNN, NPR, and/or PBS as credible sources? Lord forbid you look at anything outside your bubble
As was pointed out above, global warming is not the same thing as climate change, even though the know-nothing press and igrnoramus politicos have adopted those terms as interchangeable.
Global warming is an experimentally measured phenomenon. The measurements are completely clear. Global warming is happening.
Climate change is an expected result of global warming. How the climate will change, how much, and when, is based on models -- you know, those things called programs that run on machines called "computers." The models agree well with the past, but they have already been quite wrong, though so far by underestimating the rate of change of some things, like ice sheet melting.
Because "climate change" is based on models, not measurement, it is open to dispute. Events that have happened seem to be climate change, but might not be, because climate change is a statistical phenomenon.
In addition, although it is fairly clear that most if not all global warming is the result of human activity, that too is not entirely certain, and thus open to some dispute.
None of that changes the fact that Wisconsin acted based on politics, not science, both before and after.
Also, none of that addresses the fact that the draconian austerity efforts to arrest global warming are unlikely to work.
Answer: Because the government said so back in the 1970's.
If there's too much CO2 being emitted, maybe we should have every other model year of cars built without the catalytic converter?
Fact One: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It is more transparent to frequencies of visible light than frequencies of infrared light.
Fact Three: The exact amount of greenhouse effect of existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is unknown. We only know that it must be some magnitude greater than zero. See Fact One.
It's a shame there's no nearby planet where we could observe the effects of an atmosphere that is close to 100% CO2. One that we could observe with a telescope and close enough to send probes. If only there was a planet like that, we could gain a huge amount insight into the effects of CO2.
If only Mars was like that and we had any inkling of its climate. But, according to WikiPedia, despite the fact that "the atmosphere of Mars consists of about 96% carbon dioxide", and "Mars's climate has similarities to Earth's, including seasons and periodic ice ages", unfortunately it has "much lower thermal inertia" which means that it is a freezing hell hole not a boiling hell hole. Therefore it is obviously in disagreement with 97% of climate scientists, and is a Trump-supporting climate denier.
"Don't you think it is time to fix your corrupt politics to look after the voters instead of donor corporations?"
It is naïve to think this is driven by "donor corporations." The donor corporations are on board with making the compromises you speak of. And what do you mean fracking is not regulated in America? It is indeed regulated -- under the Federal system, there are states that allow it and states that outlaw it outright -- there does not seem to be any political middle ground that you speak of.
This is driven by voter pushback against what is perceived to be the agenda of the crunchies (USian term-of-art meaning "granola-eating" for knitted yogurt uneducated environmentalist activists, only they are far from uneducated as they hold college degrees, but they are resentful that their degrees do not merit them more highly paying occupations) on Mifflin and Williamson streets (place names in Madison, the capital city of the State of Wisconsin, United States of America). People who don't want nuclear power or fracking in any form and a whole bunch of other things. People who associate all of that with the "U", which has slashed our budget in very legislative term.
Politics is not about "truth", it is about voters "feelings." If you want to advance the agenda of reducing CO2 emissions, you are going to have to do a much better job "triangulating" than "Kill millions of brown people through seal level rise in places like Bangladesh."
The people in Wisconsin outside Madison aren't motivated by being scolded that they are callous to the projected deaths of millions of people, that is, according to a worst-case scenario that the U.K. had fact-checked from "An Inconvenient Truth", deciding on showing it in their schools with a disclaimer. Adding "brown people" is also indirectly claiming that the callousness stems from the affected persons being of a different race. The sum total of such criticisms is 1) not helping fund the University of Wisconsin-Madison in educating and conducting research benefiting our state, and 2) helping the vulnerable people in low-lying Bangladesh.
Is "knitted yogurt uneducated environmentalist activists" a U.K. term?
Wisconsin outside the major cities? Think of rural Austria. The politics are not driven by corporations.
Yes, EVERY SINGLE liberal person believes that Russian hackers LITERALLY infiltrated the election votes. Generalize much?
Maybe I'm just bored to death, but I just wanted to do simple ballpark estimation on CO2.
The current world oil consumption is 90 billion barrels a day. Burning the processed products of a barrel of crude oil releases about 300kg of CO2. Which means we release about 1e13kg of CO2 each year (10 billion tons).
Now the mass of the total atmosphere is about 5e18kg, which puts our production of CO2 (for oil alone!) at about 2e-6 of the total mass or 2ppm. In comparison the concentration of CO2 is currently of 400ppm. So if every CO2 kg we produce from oil were to go into the atmosphere, we would be inducing a 0.5% change per year. That definitely at significant man made change.
Now, not all of the CO2 stays into the atmosphere (some dissolve into the ocean causing acidification) which should lower our figure. But we didn't take into account gas and coal. All in all, in this ballpark estimate, we can say that man made CO2 should be in the order of 1ppm (probably less than 5, probably more than 0.5).
Now guess what, CO2 level in the atmosphere have been rising by about 2ppm per year in the last few years, which means that all of it is probably due to us burning things. It's frightening to see we are changing the atmosphere of our planet so quickly.
now, a second calculation. If we were to try to trap this CO2 in plants, how much area would be needed? Well corn or oat have a pretty good biomass per square meter, around 1 kg per m^2. If we were able to perform direct conversion of CO2 mass into corn, we would need 1e13 m^2 or equivalently 10 million square kilometers. To put into perspective, that's about the size of Canada entirely covered with corn, no city, no road, no tree. And that's without taking into account the other elements needed to make a plant, only the CO2. So yeah, we're not going to trap these anywhere.
Video of some good progressive thrash music
Can you provide a link showing that the reasons millions of Americans don't believe in global warming is due to the rapture?
He didn't say that those Americans didn't believe in global warming - He said that they believed it didn't matter. I suppose that if you believe that we're on the cusp of being teleported off this rock, you don't care what happens to it. I don't know how many people feel that way strongly enough to ignore the environment, but it's an important difference.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
God said in the first book of Genesis to take care of the earth, period! ..Pollution kills people so where is the "thou shall not kill"?? Guess they were sleeping in bible class when that was said. Has the rapture happened yet? NO? The get back to fixing the problems of this world! And quit goofing off!!
Pretty sure doesn't seem like a good basis for sweeping public policy initiatives. The problem is that the historical CO2 curves and temperature correlate perfectly, yet the stagnant CO2 growth in recent years doesn't match means it is a rather poor model where not all variables, interactions, and boundary conditions are included. The true system is far more complex than the model and it is flatly scientifically disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
My grandmom is a duck you insensitive clod.
Well first they have to be found guilty. But who am I kidding, with a 99% conviction rate, who cares.
When people write a statement such as this subject, it is not surprising that there is so much confusion and misunderstanding, leading to heat with no light. Any logical person considering that climate change has always occurred, since long before there were humans, should be able to construct a sentence that expresses the thought that s/he is trying to convey, in a more nuance manner which would contain at least a modicum of truth.
If their God does exist, a lot of them are going to be very disappointed.
This is not remarkable considering only 42% of Americans believe APG is real.
The remarkable thing is slashdot gets all deranged about things like this.
One, commonly used map projections make things look larger near the poles.
Two, rock which is bare or has only a few inches of crappy soil is not great for farming.
Three, there is (as the name implies) another hemisphere.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
All of them have more credibility than Fox News or Breitbart.
> To me, threatening to 'change peer review' to keep out papers you don't like is prima facie bad.
Good thing that's not what they actually did.
But you keep telling yourself what you need to hear in order to rationalize your blind faith that they are all in cahoots to lie about the science.
The most correct distinction to make about climate change vs global warming is to distinguish between the overturning of the theory that the climate was cyclical and self-moderating, and the subsequent understanding that not only could it be changed, that it is being changed, and that human activity is the primary cause. The idea that the climate was (somehow) static persisted through the 1950s. I found a textbook the other day printed in that year which explicitly dismissed CO2 as a source of warming, and Callendar 1949 ("CAN CARBON DIOXIDE INFLUENCE CLIMATE?") paints an equally explicit picture of the theory's "chequered history". Evidence for ice ages of course had been known since the early 19th century, and were widely accepted by the latter half of that century, so there were many theories of climate change which did not discuss warming, and indeed Arrhenius' foundational 1896 paper presents the warming scenario merely for comparison.
There is absolutely a difference between "climate change" and "global warming", and both concepts did have to establish themselves separately. One imagines that it is still possible to research paleoclimate without necessarily taking explicit note of ongoing climatic changes. However, the study of the current climate is synonymous with the study of global warming.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
That chart shows that CO2 levels have not been elevated for some fifty million years. Very few species currently on Earth evolved under high-CO2 conditions, and that can especially be considered true for modern farming varietals, which tend to be genetically distinct from wild plants. Modern experiments with high-CO2 farming show decreases in growth above 1200ppm for most species,
And to the sibling poster, do any amount of research into the results of melting permafrost. It would be easier to farm the Sahara than the tundra under any climactic conditions.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Disproving AGW would at this point require new physics, so there's not a lot of research towards it.There's a similarly distressing lack of research into over-unity devices and anti-gravity boots. It seems that after 150+ years the physics of CO2 are pretty well established. Did you know that AGW was completely discredited up until the mid 50s? Somehow the entire field completely changed over to thinking a different way, and scientists weren't fired en masse because there wasn't any sort of political controversy tied up in what the science said.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Climate change is happening, and that is of course a fact nobody is denying at this day and age.
Please see e.g. James Inhofe, the Senator with the snowball, and sadly, Chair of the US Senate Environment Committee.
Stephan
This is what pisses me off
Years ago it came out that the climate change scientists were almost ALL lying to get federal funding.
Although this is america and people forget history seemingly overnight. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...
Heres a little food for thought, i know some of you dont like to think "it hurts" and the such. but dont be a fucking fool
The idea that "academics" is a singular group that are so dedicated to supporting their tribe that they would brook no dissent is a recipe for denying any and all evidence that you disagree with.
I've seen what happens to reasonable, scientific people who disagree with the IGCC and consensus. I've seen the flames spouting from climate scientists when they talk to regular folk who dare ask questions. We had one person on faculty here who you could count on to have a vitriolic letter to the editor of the city paper every time someone else had a letter questioning the science. As predictable as ... gravity.
It is hyperbole to say "would brook no dissent" in regard to the entire community, but for a significant part of it that is exactly and horrifyingly true.
So please, don't discount the good old boys network when considering what is happening in this branch of science. Faculty meetings get rather tense when one of the attendees does not accept the consensus in the field, no matter what field that is. It's human nature. Scientists are humans. It happens.
I don't know how many people feel that way strongly enough to ignore the environment, but it's an important difference.
I don't think it makes any difference at all.
What does make a difference is that science has been very bad at explaining what the normal person sees outside their kitchen window. Everyone sees the temperature vary by a large amount every day. They can't detect a 0.1C increase on average over a year or a month. They look out the window and see snow and ice on the ground in a place where ten years ago that never happened. But temperatures are going up? They read in the news that the local mountains are already over their normal snowpack levels for the winter, but snow melts when it gets warm and if the temperatures are higher ...?
It's the old tale of how you boil a frog. You can't throw him into a pot of boiling water, he'll jump out. You put him in cold water and bring it to a boil slowly. The frogs don't see a problem.
People have gotten tired of asking how global climate change can be true based on what they see, and getting the answers "it's the climate, not the weather STUPID", or "the science is settled, there is no debate on this issue." Or being brushed off with "almost all scientists agree, so it must be right". The "scientists" who have chosen this method of communicating with the public need to sit down and shut up and let trained communicators take the lead.
I believe that it's safe to say that consensus is how we evaluate all competing models of reality.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
The models reflect the historical climate accurately. So there is a very high probability that those same models predictions of future climate are also reasonably accurate.
It is almost trivial to write a model that matches historical data. It is even easier when you are allowed to massage that historical data to remove "outliers" that don't match your model output, or filter or adjust it to remove biases, etc. It is MUCH harder to write a model that can then accurately predict climate, given the number of variables and how they effect the outcome.
I remember getting a happy email from the folks at NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) who were creating models that produced the "hockey stick". They were tickled pink that they had just modified the model parameters so that it still followed the historical data ("hindcast") but had a much more significant up-bend in the predictions. In other words, they changed a few numbers used in the model and it showed a much worse problem. Both sets of parameters "correctly" predicted the same past data, but they differed for the future. What was the difference? They picked the numbers to get the result they wanted to show.
Most people don't realize the simplifications that have to be written into any model just to get the thing to run in a reasonable amount of time. That's true for small scale models; it's VERY true for global scales. You can make a model produce just about any output you want if you choose the right approximations and empirical parameters. Would you like good surfing waves next week on your favorite beach? Give me a few hours and I can predict whatever surf conditions you want...
I went looking for raw data and the old data is hidden. Why? Csiro only lists 50 years or so.
Yes, EVERY SINGLE liberal person believes that Russian hackers LITERALLY infiltrated the election votes.
No, 50% of Clinton voters, actually say they believe that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If someone disagreeing with u triggers u, u are a mental retard. Stop panicking religiously about climate.. genders.. jesus & mohamad
That 97% claim is as phony as a $7 bill or a 36 cent coin. It's been debunked so many times that it's just insane for any lefty who wants to persuade anybody to use it. When you see that number, you know you are encountering a pile of steaming bovine excrement.
I'm not going to write a novel debunking that number here, anybody with some intellectual honesty and curiosity and access to Google can easily dig into it and see the long, twisted, and exceedingly dishonest history of that claim, which is so dishonest it would make Leni Riefenstahl blush. ANY web site or "news" channel citing that number should be automatically ruled-out as a source of honest information.
"Are being debated and researched by academic entities." . And we are working on stoping them do it.
Fact One: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It is more transparent to frequencies of visible light than frequencies of infrared light.
Fact Two: The total content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing as a result of human activities. The two largest sources are the burning of fossil fuels, and the production of concrete.
Fact Three: The exact amount of greenhouse effect of existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is unknown. We only know that it must be some magnitude greater than zero. See Fact One.
Fact Four: Adding still-more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can only increase the existing greenhouse effect. See Fact One.
Question: On what basis could it be called a "good thing" to keep increasing the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
This is more clear, more thoughtful and more direct than anything published written about climate change. The kind of presentation made above is what separates someone who is just thinking clearly from everyone else who tips into serious confirmation bias like a giant stack of plates with each conversation adding a plate. I wish the majority of points made on subjects, especially those being hotly debated, were made this way.
Yeah. That delusional religiosity in America about the rapture is the mirror image of the jihadi 72 virgins delusion. They are both, functionally, insane.
Only boring people are ever bored.
There has been age ice before and ended even without humans now we are at the end of other ice age . that's it.
Listen to this for a little while. Learn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
In fact, the evidence is only getting stronger. The first IPCC report suggested that observed warming could be largely due to natural variability:
"Our judgement is that: global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3 to 0.6 oC over the last 100 years; The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability; alternatively this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect is not likely for a decade or more."
The warming observed since then makes the statement in the latest report all but unequivocal: "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report."
No.
The consensus isnt 97 percent. More like 80 or so.
I have better insight into astrology than astrologers do.
Oh yes they did. They conspired to keep non-warmunist papers from being accepted by major journals.
It's a bit of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't. You can show people changes of glaciers in Alaska, which are certainly spectacular, but people don't identify with Alaska -- no one cares. We go straight from "It's not happening near me, so it's not happening" to "It's not happening anywhere that I care about."
So the mountains of scientific evidence and the confirmation by every major climate institution on the planet, and every major scientific organisation are all meaningless to you - but the science-free claims in a youtube video by a TV personality with no experience or credentials in climatology convinced you completely?
Sorry, I can't help anyone so doggedly determined to ignore all the inconvenient parts of reality.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I have a feeling you didn't listen to the presentation. He IS a scientist. He explains his credentials in the beginning if you listened, or maybe you don't recognize them? He founded the weather channel. He explains how we've all been lied to. There is no mountain of evidence. There is no scientific consensus. He explains how they came up with the 97% of scientist claim - they are anonymous "scientists" by the way and there weren't even 100 of them. So we have no idea if it was just a number pulled out of someone's mind or not. Probably is just a made up number.
Here's a reporter that looked into this as well. He shows you the game they're playing so no matter what happens, they "predicted" it. - http://vernalutah.org/EnergySu...
Here is a site where a guy has methodically documented the fraud - http://realclimatescience.com/...
To quote you - "Sorry, I can't help anyone so doggedly determined to ignore all the inconvenient parts of reality." - such as the models not working time and time and time again. Einstein put it well - you don't need hundreds of scientists to prove him wrong, you just need one. It only takes one counter example to prove your theory wrong. We've proven Man made GW is wrong, many times and you know it if you've been paying attention. Do I need to send you links to Al Gore's hurricane/weater predictions of 10 years ago? Pull up the laughable predictions from the 1990s? We've had fewer and weaker hurricanes.
You need to know when you're being lied to. That guy lying to you is Al Gore. He's made about 500 million off this lie so far. Not bad for a guy that got this idea from a science class at Harvard that he only earned a D in the class.
The website of Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources has been updated with new language and no longer says that humans and greenhouse emissions cause climate change. Instead, the site says that the causes of global warming "are being debated and researched by academic entities." The problem is that almost all climate scientists agree that human-made greenhouse gases are responsible for climate change, and that global warming is a big issue that needs to be addressed. Prior to the revision, the site said "human activities that increase heat-trapping ("green house") gases are the main cause."
Just deny climate change exists at all. That's what you all want to fucking hear. Then you can forget about it, at least until the water starts lapping around your fucking ankles.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Here's the deal, I live in a very republican-centered area.
My own family/friends and people I hear passing by in populated areas has been a majority of what goes into my theory.
There are 2 kinds of repubs:
The sheep, low-income workers who's parents taught them you are repub or you are going to hell! They listen to repub reports like they are gospel because they don't want to go to hell. This is used as a weapon by the controlling party, religion = blind faith and when corrupted it produces blind slaves. Christianity isn't a bad thing, the corruption of it, using it as a medium to recruit the ignorant is evil and makes Jesus sad.
The shepherds, which are rich and powerful and corrupting, say global warming is a hoax whether they believe it or not because the disbelief of it is keeping their pockets full of oil/coal money. They don't care if its real or not and they are usually "smart" people and probably realize it is real, but chose to relay that its not to their ignorant followers through the "I'm Christian there for I can't lie." lie.
The subjects wont care to hear the truth either because its going against their "gospel" of repub news.
(Clearly the warning of false prophets didn't get much attention on Sundays.)
There is no convincing any of these types with words or statistics. because its either over their heads or their oil-money tells them to ignore the facts.
The best way to combat these types is to let them drowned in their own ignorance/greed. YOU set up your system that works without their greed-powered machine. If they ask how you are doing what you are, then tell them simply. And if they ignore the people doing the right things and continue their greed there's only one thing that will happen as result: They will eventually be forced into the light of truth, probably with a lot of pain and suffering, while we of the natural/survival mindset are living comfy with our sustainable systems.
Because I doubt that we, as a whole, can destroy mother nature. We can hurt her and wipe out some of the other species. But I believe the earth will get harsh and kill off enough of the population due to their inability to survive without McD's/Walmart. This alone should re-stabilize the planet. Its a harsh reality but if you look at how nature deals with its own overpopulation problems its not pretty.
The ignorant will suffer and the prepared will survive the crisis. At that point though we can't point fingers and laugh at them suffering, we must be the bigger people and show them what they refused to listen to before.
Practice what we preach, and offer proof through practice.
Again, if you want to unconditionally accept the word of a guy in a YouTube video, while ignoring the thousands of peer-reviewed studies cited and summarised in the reports I linked to, there's nothing I can say you'll listen to.
But if you want to know who's lying to who, ask for proof. And proof isn't people saying or writing whatever they feel like on blogs or videos, it's peer-reviewed evidence. The climatologists have produced the evidence cited above, while deniers have only produced rhetoric. Evidence like rising global temperatures and hurricanes getting stronger for the last 40 years, despite what you've been told.
If you just want to follow the money instead, look at the $33 trillion dollars of fossil fuel revenue at stake. Who do you think has the biggest incentive to mislead you - scientists on an $80k salary with their reputations on the line, or oil execs earning hundreds of millions from stock options?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I listened and looked. Trouble is, I don't think you do. The second one with the news reporter is just damning if you bothered to watch it. So I'm disappointed, however not surprised.
Let's look at your link to hurricanes. To preface it, have you ever read the book "how to lie with statistics." I still own the copy I bought when I was in college in the 1980s. Lend it out from time to time, however I see it's online as a PDF now. You should read it. You really should read it so you know when you're being lied to. So what does the article say? Really not a whole lot, it also begins in the 1970s. Ok, this is your first major indication you're being lied to. Why just the 1970s? If they go further back, it disproves what they're trying to indoctrinate you with. They'd have you believe that bad storms never happened before. Hogg wash. In fact HOGG Island, NYC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... 1890. Yes, 1890. I can cite plenty of other storms past that. So no, they are not stronger and they are not more frequent, and they know it. If they really were, oh boy - you'd really hear about it I'm sure. They would be in our face.
Your first citation about rising global temperatures. Here's a spot that I think you don't realize or understand. Things are warming up. We're not denying that. In fact, if you go back to Venice, you'll see water was rising up in the 1300s when they were trying to keep the Adriatic out way back then. Then we hit a little ice age - which we're coming out of right now. We are in fact going back to where we used to be before the little ice age. Please consider this article - http://www.livescience.com/143... . So this is showing you that Greenland was MUCH warmer than it is right now, and not that long ago (geologically speaking). At this point you should understand that this Man Man GW is almost certainly just a scam.
As for the fuel companies, do you really think that? You think that they won't adapt? Those guys will make a bunch of money either way. It's a red herring argument to fool people. What I can show you is Al Gore makes a boatload http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... . I think it's been well documented on /. that in "science" you want to show MMGW - lots of funds. Want to show MMGW is a scam - you'd get tarred and feathered. You won't get a dime. It clearly isn't what a Democratic administration wants. It's all about control and money.
However plenty of real scientists throughout the world are speaking up. That's why they are having such a hard time. There just is no legitimate science behind it. Again, my citations and you can look up what they're saying like I did.
So just because I showed you in an easy to understand video you don't believe it? ok.
1) Algore was a D student in science at Harvard - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...
2) Teacher was Roger Reville, who told him he was wrong - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Yea, I know, a youtube video, it's actually a transcript from a chemical film based motion picture back in 1980. The citation also goes into Mr. Armstrong, and so on.
There are plenty of other citations about the same thing if for some reason you don't like cnsnews or the youtube transcript.
Could go on. However one thing is very clear to me - if Prof Reville where here today, he's say it's not a factor. That's what the real numbers show. The numbers before they are "adjusted". That other citation I gave you shows that graphically.
So where am I wrong? Algore didn't really have Reville for a professor at Harvard? He didn't really get a D? He hasn't systematically set up condi
Oh, I looked at your "damning" links - and not one of them cited a relevant or useful study. What I saw instead was a lot of "here's a graph, here's another graph - they're different in a way I don't like - therefore, it must be deliberately faked". No attempt was made to find out why the data was adjusted, no evidence that the adjustments made readings less accurate instead of more, and no challenge to the peer-reviewed methodology of the corrections. Instead they leaped immediately to the conclusion that it was a hoax and a conspiracy - just as you are. No contrary evidence of your own, no studies, no science, just "I don't like the results so that science must have been faked". That's the very soul of denial.
Why just the 1970s? If they go further back, it disproves what they're trying to indoctrinate you with. They'd have you believe that bad storms never happened before. Hogg wash. In fact HOGG Island, NYC.
If you bothered to read the paper you'd see the data they present goes back to 1930, and only the recent increase in intensity starts in the 70s. And maybe you'd care to explain how a single storm from 1893 somehow disproves a peer-reviewed statistical analysis about storms getting stronger a hundred years later?
Likewise, please explain where the original "cold snap" study claims that Greenland before 1300 was "MUCH warmer" than today. Please explain how ice cores from two lakes in Greenland somehow mean that the average temperatures for the entire globe were warmer at that time, when no reconstruction places them anywhere close to modern levels. You think the Medieval Warm and Little Ice Age periods are unknown to climatologists? But you're already convinced it's all a scam, despite the evidence directly contradicting your claims.
As for the fuel companies, do you really think that? You think that they won't adapt?
You really think they'll happily wave goodbye to trillions of dollars without a care in the world? You're quite wrong. They'll adapt if they're forced to, but you can be certain they'll do whatever they can to exploit the reserves they have first - there's plenty of evidence of them spending hundreds of millions to confuse and delay the issue as long as they can - just like the tobacco companies did.
Instead, you're harping on about Al Gore - who's not even a scientist. Nobody cares what he says - we care what the climatologists say. They saw the problem long before Gore made a movie, and why would they care if he made money from it? Is Gore paying climatologists to falsify evidence? The ones doing that are the oil companies. Frankly, your efforts to claim that Gore somehow orchestrated the whole thing to make a buck are laughable in the face of the evidence - all the more so when you're so keen to ignore the FAR bigger amounts being made by those who benefit from ignoring it.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Wow. Just wow. Where do I start? How about the MIT paper - written in 2005, so before Al Gore and other's claim that GW is causing them. Never the less, we have a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere and we have fewer. You like NOAA's stuff - http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/ . Look towards the bottom for a bar graph. If I were to take 2000-today by year and mix it up the years by that decade with say the 1950s randomized in the 1950s (so it's not obvious which one is which, however with correct data for that decade) and see if you can tell which one is which, I bet you'd lose that one. Unless you really studied the data carefully. I honestly don't understand how you can say there are more and they are worse. The NOAA graph just doesn't show that, at least not yet. Maybe next month it will after they "adjust" it so it's not a problem anymore like they're doing with the other stuff.
(previous stuff I showed you) You looked at the graphs, saw the data was different and that didn't concern you? The "adjustments" are always in favor of GW. If you're a TA or a Professor going over someone's scientific work, that is one of the things you look out for. Faked or wrong data. The fact NASA has been caught red handed changing this stuff REALLY should bother you.
Here are some references, but look below
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
You like the telegraph?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
Here's one for you and you can see it with your own (as the Eagles would say - lying) eyes - Hansen's page (He no longer works for nasa BTW)- http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea... . Not as I remembered it. That's because they keep changing it - http://web.archive.org/web/*/h... Check out the 2007/2/24 version to today. Wow, same page where he admits in 2007 that the 1930s was the hottest decade on record. Now 1930s looks a lot colder. I don't think anyone would say the 1930s was the hottest on record as Hansen had to admit to in the early 2000s looking at the new graph. He claimed 1990s were until he was shown to be wrong. He claimed it was a Y2K bug. I don't think anyone believed that one.
Greenland - what about Venice Italy? It wasn't just Greenland, it was global.
To me this captain obvious moment (shown by the documented change in web page above) really should concern you, and make you mad that you've been lied to all of this time. Could go on and show you page after page or as that other site did, he overlaid them for you. Not that you seem to care, or perhaps you don't understand the material. I'm reminded a lot that other people aren't like me. Things that are painfully obvious to me aren't obvious to others.
Now, about concensus? http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB... Yea, not so much.
Well I've enjoyed going down memory lane a bit here if you're not persuaded by the very definitive evidence I've shown you, you probably never will be. I understand I'm asking a lot because a great deal of money has been spent to make you believe, change data, and so on. MMGW is all about making a bunch of money and control.
The comparison to tobacco is disingenuous BTW. I was a scientist back in those days, in the 1970s. I felt it was clear. Again, I could find where the tobacco industry had faked data and weren't being honest. It wasn't hard even without something like the Internet. This in a time when science wasn't so good, calling a lot of things cancer causing that weren't. Showing other people without something like the Internet was just about impossib
Hate to bother you again, I promised to pass this along to you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... . This is a real scientist, a Nobel Laurete and he talks about this too. I didn't think this would help any, however Lars did...
How about the MIT paper - written in 2005, so before Al Gore and other's claim that GW is causing them
So? What does that have to do with the causes of increasing hurricane intensity? You still think nobody knew about AGW until Gore's movie? The MIT paper is about global hurricane intensity, not the frequency of hurricanes making landfall in the US, so that NOAA page you cite is irrelevant (current research on AGW suggests hurricane frequency is not affected much, only intensity).
You looked at the graphs, saw the data was different and that didn't concern you?
Unlike you - or the deniers at WUWT et al - I took the time to find out why those corrections were made. I didn't leap straight to assuming they must have been faked.
Anyone making judgements about the accuracy of science based purely on the results is guaranteed to introduce bias. Methodology is king. Changes are expected - corrections are of course required if past inaccuracies are discovered, and are absolutely justified if the methodology is peer-reviewed, regardless of whether you like the results.
The "adjustments" are always in favor of GW.
Prove it. You don't even know what adjustments were done, let alone why, so you're making up your own bogus motives instead. Let me enlighten you.
Hansen's page ... where he admits in 2007 that the 1930s was the hottest decade on record.
You mean the paragraph where he says, "Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934"? Bolding mine, because you're apparently unable to spot the difference between the US and the globe. That paragraph is unchanged in both versions BTW, which you could've verified for yourself.
It wasn't just Greenland, it was global.
And this is where you need to cite a peer-reviewed study to back up your claim (presuming you remember what "global" means).
Now, about concensus[sic]? [WSJ commentary snipped] Yea, not so much.
So you're happy to accept as gospel truth a newspaper commentary citing no peer-reviewed studies, yet you reject the conclusions of seven independent scientific studies listed here. Why, because one fits your pre-existing beliefs and the other doesn't? Certainly doesn't seem to be evidence-based.
I understand I'm asking a lot because a great deal of money has been spent to make you believe, change data, and so on. MMGW is all about making a bunch of money and control.
Oh the irony. Did you miss the part where I cited numerous reports of hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by the fossil fuel industry specifically to sway public opinion and protect their revenue? Where's your own evidence? Missing as usual.
How does paying Al Gore (among others) a bunch of money fix that?
Who's suggesting that? What does that have to do with the science? I haven't proposed any solutions here, because they're irrelevant to the science describing the problem. If you're really curious read my post history, but whatever action or inaction we take, AGW isn't going away - we'll have to deal with it one way or another. The science is very clear on that.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Did you know that Al Gore is also a Nobel Laureate? Yet his opinion is much less important than that of any practicing climatologist, because he is not an expert in that field - just like the physicist Ivar Giaever. Appeals to authority are meaningless; only considered conclusions from experts who have seen all the data and have the training and experience to interpret it.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
If you did put stock in the opinions of Nobel laureates, you'd want to look at more than one source to understand their broad consensus. Here's a declaration by 36 of them calling for urgent action on climate change. So 1/36 dissenters means that there's about a 97% consensus among Nobel laureates.