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.
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.
Untrue.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Reading this article, I don't see that it's "climate change alarmists" that are scrubbing references to AGW from public documents.
It kind of sounds like the climate deniers are the ones trying to exercise command and control.
In Florida, the GOP government went so far as to ban the term "climate change".
http://www.miamiherald.com/new...
You are welcome on my lawn.
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!
> 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.
> 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.
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"?
In fact from the mid 40s to around around 1980 there actually was a slight decrease in measured temperature at surface stations around the globe, although not to early 20th C levels. This was due to the rise of SO2 above many of the temperature stations, which reduced sunlight reaching the surface. You probably aren't old enough to remember, but this is what cities often looked like in the 60s.
So in the mid 60s the future direction of climate was still somewhat open. On one hand increasing CO2 (by then measurable) was warming the Earth; on the other natural variations in the Earth's orbit and increased SO2 would have a cooling effect. The question was which effect would prevail. By the mid 70s the vast majority of papers concluded that the balance would tip toward warming, successfully predicting the warming seen after 1980 before it actually happened. Of course public understanding of the current state of science is usually a decade or more out of date. In the case of AGW, almost nobody outside of Earth Sciences was aware of the newly emerged consensus until An Incovenient Truth came out -- which left people feeling blindsided. But you can go back in Google Scholar and watch that consensus emerge some thirty years earlier. I was aware of it in the 80s because I'd married a geophysicist.
As for peak oil that's a much tougher nut to crack because it depends on predictions of future oil recovery technologies and the discovery of future energy reserves. If technology hadn't improved since the 1970s we'd surely be looking at much more expensive petroleum. Economists have never predicted we'll "run out of oil", by the way, because that's not how markets work. What will happen is oil will someday become too expensive to use to power things like cars. We're still headed there eventually, but nobody can say exactly when.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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?