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?...
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.
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.
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.
...they've just started that campaign against "Fake News"?
-Styopa
> Science is a democracy
Science is most assuredly not a democracy. Leaders may be determined by geography, tradition, and popularity, but truth is not determined in such a way.
This. Science is a meritocracy. To complete your point, truth in science is determined by observation.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
A bunch of academics found no fault with a bunch of academics. W o W
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=-
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.
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."
Science news is of interest to nerds. When politicians start misrepresenting science that is also of interest.