Slashdot Mirror
How Climate Change Deniers Rise To the Top in Google Searches (nytimes.com)
If you searched for the words "climate change" into Google, until earlier this week, you could have gotten an unexpected result: ads that call global warming a hoax. "Scientists blast climate alarm," said one that appeared at the top of the search results page during a recent search, pointing to a website, DefyCCC, that asserted: "Nothing has been studied better and found more harmless than anthropogenic CO2 release." Another ad proclaimed: "The Global Warming Hoax -- Why the Science Isn't Settled," linking to a video containing unsupported assertions, including that there is no correlation between rising levels of greenhouse gases and higher global temperatures. These references were first reported by The New York Times (the link may be paywalled). From a report: America's technology giants have come under fire for their role in the spread of fake news during the 2016 presidential campaign, prompting promises from Google and others to crack down on sites that spread disinformation. Less scrutinized has been the way tech companies continue to provide a mass platform for the most extreme sites among those that use false or misleading science to reject the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. Google's search page has become an especially contentious battleground between those who seek to educate the public on the established climate science and those who reject it. Not everyone who uses Google will see climate denial ads in their search results. Google's algorithms use search history and other data to tailor ads to the individual, something that is helping to create a highly partisan internet. A recent search for "climate change" or "global warming" from a Google account linked to a New York Times climate reporter did not return any denial ads. The top results were ads from environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund. But when the same reporter searched for those terms using private browsing mode, which helps mask identity information from Google's algorithms, the ad for DefyCCC popped up.
[...] The climate denialist ads are an example of how contrarian groups can use the internet's largest automated advertising systems to their advantage, gaming the system to find a mass platform for false or misleading claims.
[...] The climate denialist ads are an example of how contrarian groups can use the internet's largest automated advertising systems to their advantage, gaming the system to find a mass platform for false or misleading claims.
""He who controls the medium controls the message. He who controls the message controls the masses."
The NY Times hates competition.
First it was global warming. Then that wasnâ(TM)t proven so it shifted to climate change. Seems suspicious that there are a lot of people making a lot of money and fame off of something they canâ(TM)t even be consistent about.
I don't deny climate change or the man-made CO2 volume. What I deny is that I give a fuck. I might have cared before it became an SJW pet issue and another reason for the far-left to shake their finger in my face. The extremists on both sides made it partisan. The international idea that Americans should compensate the rest of the word for emitting CO2 earlier than them. If my grandparents had a white picket fence and a CO2 monster V8 Corvette, then GOOD. I'm glad they weren't living in fucking mud huts and collecting wives.
Google is a for-profit advertising company. You say they present ads from people who pay them to do so? And they tailor your search results to make you think they're the best search engine so you look at more ads? Shocking.
Either legislate unbiased search and advertising and give up the pretence of pure capitalism, or eat your dogfood and quit complaining.
Why would you use ads as a source of news? Is there something that I'm missing here, like google not labelling ads as ads so that people get confused between an ad and a search result?
Every company uses "tech", so unless you're talking about buying buggy whips from the Amish, let's call a spade a spade.
Advertising companies take money and spread lies. Get over it. Google does it on your searches. Facebook does it on your friendships.
Go back to 4chan.
Usenet
Nobody challenges (or "denies" if you prefer to stick with your dogmatic zealot friendly language) that climate and weather changes.
Science means you get to ask the questions and you don't get shouted down because you aren't with the hivemind. Specially if you are defending a posture that you benefit from personally (grant money, peer reviewed publications). It is totally unclear what the impact of human activity is.
Nobody in the zealot camp can argue science, when they haven't been able to present a model that has been proven to be accurate. There has been plenty of "abrupt" changes in atmospheric composition and temperature in the past.
Tactics employing vague statements and fear, uncertainty, and doubt should be very much familiar to old slashdoters.
The narrative has changed from "global warming" to "climate change".
So those "deniers" of global warming are now considered to have been right by the hivemind now?
In addition to already being an advertisement platform to sheep, this and more shocking news at 11.
I like to read and analyze data. I apply common sense where it makes sense, but I am HIGHLY SKEPTICAL of opinion-biased 'facts' and lets not forget, that computer models are programmed by humans.. people who could have agendas.
The real danger is when group-think is the only acceptable answer and when no other opinions are presented.
Less scrutinized has been the way tech companies continue to provide a mass platform for the most extreme sites among those that use false or misleading science
Yeah, it would be nice if they would actually start more carefully vetting sites based on real science!
to reject the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change
Oh, my bad, you actually want to base results on popularity, not scientific validity. Carry on then.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
See subject.
Slashdot still likes to peddle psuedo-science.
The NY Times is a source of curated information.
Google is an index of the internet. The internet is a cesspool. Google is an index of a cesspool.
Climate change is real! Science!
There are 50+ genders! REEEEEE
Bye, Felicia. If you want, I'll write you a letter of recommendation.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The AGW zealots posted this right when everyone else is too busy shoveling global warming out of their driveways.
Have gnu, will travel.
Bring back kuro5hin.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Science never has and never will prove anything. The evidence shows that the planet Earth goes through warming and cooling periods over time. It has been doing it for billions of years I imagine.
Last Week MsMash posted a story about how cheap Green Electricity was in Germany all the while never bothering to mention the cost to the consumer was $0.30/KWH
Seems there's plenty of shit to go around but as usual some people don't think their shit stinks.
the billionaires funding these ad buys? The Koch brothers just spent $20 million on a "grass roots" campaign sending people knocking on doors to tell people how great the tax bill is. I wouldn't be surprised to find some or all of these ad buys come from their PAC.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
if you don't care?
I see that the racist also hates women.
Eat shit, boomers
At the same time, Google's "new algorithm" moves many long-time leftist web sites way, way down in search results.
The "World Socialist Website" has been documenting this, since they are major victims of it.
"An open letter to Google: Stop the censorship of the Internet! Stop the political blacklisting of the World Socialist Web Site! "
https://www.wsws.org/en/articl...
"The conspiracy to censor the Internet"
https://www.wsws.org/en/articl...
The financial statements do not lie, unlike the Times editorial staff.
EVERY time I read something from a climate change denier like you, I have undisputable proof of their stupidity and ignorance. EVERY time.
I have WORKED in the field of climatology all my life. I have SEEN the numbers. Heck, I have MEASURED a lot of them myself. I have plotted the graphs. I have worked with biologists, forestry experts, oceanography experts, agricultural scientists. I have TALKED with Inuit elders. I have WITNESSED habitat transformations due to changing climate. I KNOW that the Earth is GETTING WARMER.
And you ? You know NOTHING. You ARE NOTHING, except a worthless, clueless, little fuck, who's trying to convince himself and everybody else that the sky is red.
Do a favor to humanity and just fucking die.
I have 800,000 years of direct, measurable evidence that the earth's climate cycles between warming and cooling, and that we are, in fact, in the fifth such cycle.
You, on the other hand, have what-if models that account only for unending warming, something which hasn't happened in 800,000 years.
I don't know about you, but I think it's better to go with the 800,000-year-old patterns that I can directly observe in ice core samples, rather than your wonky spreadsheets. And if you want to make an extraordinary claim that 800,000 years of climate cycles are suddenly coming to an end, brother, you'd better have a whale of a lot of extraordinary hard EVIDENCE. Not spreadsheets.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
This is what the left in their recent push to censor and ban all speech right of center as "fascism" is that what they do to radical right ideas they will do to radical left ideas twice as hard because let's face it hardcore libertarianism and even fascism services tech companies quite nicely as IBM had some huge contracts with Nazi Germany. On the other hand socialist ideas will always be a threat, so they will also be censored. No, pantywaisted identity outrage is not leftism so it's left alone, even promoted, but start talking about economy equality and dignity for deplorable working class scum and suddenly all the corporate media in the world is targeting you for take down.
Now and then during those 800,000 years (and more) the earth's climate has changed rapidly due to anomalous events. The Industrial Revolution is one of them.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
If you think this article is a politics article rather than a science article, you might be looking for a place like Free Republic, or InfoWars.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Davide you are a retard. Human beings didn't have massive factories or automobiles for 800,000 years you ridiculous TWAT.
Just use the SJW to de rank the search results and the internet will be good again.
Any other trending topics that SJW can correct back to more political correct results?
Feel free to list what other topics and search results SJW can derank....
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
It's not that anyone's gaming the system, it's just that Google thinks that if you hide your identity or personal information, you must be a loony paranoid conspiracy theorist and so it just gives you what it thinks you want; loony paranoid conspiracy theories.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
Thats exactly his point you naive idiot...
Why is it that every time a Che-wearing communist decides to enlighten the rest of us proles, it always ends up with said communist advocating death?
Man made Climate change is Proven in the same way It is proven that every workd in Bible is a literal truth.
You do know that none of those recorded cycles have seen temperature changes anywhere close to this rapid? The evidence is evidence of the effect of man's activity on the climate, not the opposite.
The only way you can claim that man made climate change isn't happening is by cherry picking a few studies on the subject.
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
Why don't you get a real job and move out of mom's basement?
Or course America should do more. It's by far the biggest polluter. Something like 5x the world average. And it's also rich enough to do something about it, unlike a lot of countries. But selfish fuckers like you stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it's some one elses problem.
Because yes, I'm advocating death of those who would condemn our children and grandchildren to a life of misery, suffering, and death. Sue me, miserable little piece of filth.
By the way: So a scientist is automatically a Che-wearing communist now ? EVERY time a climate change denier opens his mouth. EVERY time. It never fails.
No wonder you anti-science fucktards still believe the earth is 6000 years old. The scientists that tell you otherwise are all evil communists !!!
You'd be surprised how well money works in the new world of faith and money based science.
A few calls and bakheesh from the right people, and baby, we're rockin' a 6000 year old flat earth.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
All the left wing apple hating nonsense you crave from the worst Slashdot editor ever.
Analyzing the 800,000 years of cycles, scientists determined that changing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were responsible for half of the temperature changes (the other half were due to changing albedo as ice sheets grew and retreated).
Any serious geologist who has studied paleoclimate understands that throughout earth's history, natural changes in CO2 levels have been the dominant driver of natural climate change. It is absurd to think that if natural changes in CO2 have been responsible for most of the natural climate change in earth's past, that there would be little effect when the changing CO2 levels are due to human activity instead of nature.
I have a friend you could test your CAGW-SJW theories on, a really nice fellow. He carries a charm in his back pocket to ward off evil, made with a special element, scandium 357.
He could probably cure all those worries and aggressive tendencies.
> If you think this article is a politics article
He said "political". Perhaps you need to stay in school.
Considering that communism is the most successful totalitarian system for murdering dissidents I would think it fits quite well.
You know how they figured out the warming and cooling for those ice cores, idiot?
Thermodynamics. A planet doesn't warm and cool without reason. Along with the cyclical Milankovich cycles, anomalous events recorded in the cores correlate strongly with atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Which makes sense if had a clue about physics. In physics there's a concept called the mean free path. It's why the ozone layer that makes up a tiny fraction of our atmosphere is capable of preventing our planet from being a sterilized ball of rock. That same concept also explains why trace gases can have noticeable affects on our planet, such as those greenhouse gases that prevent our planet from becoming a snowball.
Chemistry. Physics. Thermodynamics. The atmosphere adheres to them just like everything else. There are no special set of rules that say conservation of energy is never violated EXCEPT when it comes to climate.
BTW, you can download and examine the model source code. They're built on the same physics and chemistry you use every single day without it ever even crossing your tiny little mind.
Educate yourself so the next time you don't sound like a blathering moron.
~X~
Last year I had to research local HVAC providers. Google was useless. There wasn't a single local result and every one looked like they SEOed the crap out of their site to rise to the top. Decided to go old school and use the yellow pages (the big paper book with yellow pages) instead and it was far more informative.
You should ask your favourite editor at Breitbart or Russia Today to start a Tech news section.
And please stay there. Your crocodile tears over how [insert name of news site here] has become so utterly useless and lame and how, oh it’s so unfortunate, but everybody should stop reading it unless it ceases and desists from publishing anything critical of [insert name of party or politician] and be so unfairly biased against [insert name of loony conspiracy theory here]... are not welcome in discussion about news topics. Host your own blog and invite your fellow trolls to compete for the most disruptive comment over there.
Or write to the editors of the site so they can have a good laugh, instead of bothering its readers.
Yes, when you "blast" something, you win. I thought everybody knew that.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Global warming was a hoax, you reeking turd.
PopeRatzo hates everyone who isn't a rich, land-owning, smugly self-satisfied Democrat party member.
Nice dogmatism, broham!
It's a made up religion and you're the Jehovah's Witness equivalent.
Wasn't there an article a week or so ago talking about the sun getting smaller and cooler?
People are daring to say unapproved things. Others are daring to let that text be found! This must be stopped.
No! Liar! The co2 change *follows* temperature changes!
Fuck, I so hate you lying anti-science agw religious faithful nutbags!
Please die so real scientists can discuss things without all your religious noise cluttering up the internet.
Surely a sign of global warming. (lol)
Obligatory XKCD, although it only goes back 22k years:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Perhaps the GP can post some data from earlier where there is a sudden spike like we saw in the last century.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Alright, link me to your 800,000 years of evidence.
As for the what-if models, they worked out pretty well when the predicted, in the 1970s, the reversal of a global cooling trend that had been going on since 1940. That's pretty damn good confirmation.
Calling a model "what if" makes it sounds dodgy, but any prediction of the future is "what if" -- even if that prediction is that there will be no change. Predicting that the atmosphere will warm because of some other reason is also relying on a "what if" model.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Real science doesn't label critics as “deniers”. Politics in the name of science does that.
I have 800,000 years of direct, measurable evidence that the earth's climate cycles between warming and cooling, and that we are, in fact, in the fifth such cycle.
Ah, a new theory. Here's a basic sniff test: In all the cycles over the past 800 000 years, what caused the climate to change?
And what is causing it to change this time?
You, on the other hand, have what-if models that account only for unending warming, something which hasn't happened in 800,000 years.
The only models I've seen suggesting an unending warming cycle are those used by denialists. Which is to say, if you can't adequately explain the current warming, then you cannot rule out a never ending warming cycle. So: what is causing the current warming event?
And the direct satellite evidence?
Faked.
The future chinese brought back transmitters from the future to send signals because there are no satellites because, the truth is, there is no space. Space, and the moon, are a vast liberal conspiracy. That's how the whole thing started: Fourier surmised that the reason the earth's temperature was so different from the moon's is because of the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but he would say that, because he is a zombie Knights Templar who is/was/will be in league with the time travelling chinese.
"No, I don't need to cherry pick anything."
Ok, show is the data sets then... but I suspect you don't know what cherry picking means.
"Hansen, Mann, Climategate. Done. It's a fraud."
So then maybe instead, what you don't know is how to determine what is disinformation.
Are you trolling or really just this stupid?
But there's a difference between criticism and denial... One requires an explanation, the other doesn't, which is why the first is useful, and the latter is not, and therefore has no real place in science.
I have 800,000 years of direct, measurable evidence that the earth's climate cycles between warming and cooling, and that we are, in fact, in the fifth such cycle.
Exactly. And we are currently in the cooling part of the cycle,
But the temperature is going up.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Real critics of scientific theory don't deny reality and lie. Deniers do.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Concern troll is concerned.
Centre-left my arse.
I am tempted to abandon Slashdot, as the signal to noise ratio of 'actually interesting' articles is very low
Welcome to the first decade of the 21st century, where have you been been?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
We don't deny "climate change" since that has been going on since the creation of the earth. What we are "skeptic" about is how much humans have impacted the atmosphere. One super-volcano eruption can emit enough carbon dioxide and methane that can eclipse what mankind has produced in the last 150 years. The climate of the earth has never stood still. We are still coming out of an ice age. Yes man has affected the atmosphere.... but how significant is it really? Deforestation I think is more of an issue.
But it doesn't change for magical reasons. There are physical processes behind those changes. That is exactly what climate scientists study.
I don't know about you, but I think it's better to go with the 800,000-year-old patterns that I can directly observe in ice core samples, rather than your wonky spreadsheets. And if you want to make an extraordinary claim that 800,000 years of climate cycles are suddenly coming to an end, brother, you'd better have a whale of a lot of extraordinary hard EVIDENCE. Not spreadsheets.
Of course those 800,000 years of ice age cycles have never seen an atmospheric CO2 level of 405 ppm. That might make a difference.
Of course climate science is falsifiable. But maybe not on a time scale you're comfortable with. Yet climate models continue to predict pretty much what has been happening even if they're not as precise as you'd like them to be.
The other thing to keep in mind is that climate science is composed of thousands of different theories brought together to form a more complete overall picture. It's those subtheories that you really need to falsify.
Real science doesn't label critics as “deniers”. Politics in the name of science does that.
Real scientists label things as what they are. In this case there are two theories a) the critics of global warming are "denialists" and b) the critics of global warming are "skeptics". There's an experimental test we can do. We take those that are critical and we provide them with experimental evidence and data. We allow them to make predictions and then we test those predictions. What happens in most cases is that they go through a series of different denials and change their theories: there is no warming oh.. there is warming however it will go away soon oh .. it didn't go awayhowever it isn't caused by CO2oh .. it is caused by CO2 but it isn't caused by humans and it's natural oh.. and this goes on and on.
In a few cases there are actual skeptics and when you do this they end up admitting that they were wrong which is how science works. These people were skeptics and were valid critics and do end up changing their mind when they see and understand the overwhelming evidence.
In your case, I make the prediction that even when I point you to sufficient evidence to be clear you will not take it into account and change your views. That would make you a "denialist" because that is what scientific testing shows you are, not because I'm labelling you.
Warming and cooling of the earth is indeed not the problem. What is the problem is the speed of the change and it's correlation to the time after the industrial revolution. In case you don't trust this, see the info in this link, google a bit on non-US sites and you'll see who else agrees on this.
It seems to me that it is a bit strange that practically every other country agrees that climate change is a real problem. Certainly if you include the fact that some of them will have just as much economic loss as the US (e.g.: Western European countries) by admitting this.
About the correlation, I know that correlation does not imply causation, but I can't really think of something that causes both the industrial revolution and global warming...
I think many agree with the climate change because its been happening for as long as the Earth has been around. Its the blaming everything humans do that causes it that's completely irrelevant. All well and good to take steps to address things that may make our world better. Quite another to cry wolf at everything as if the sky is falling. Its like car alarms, eventually everyone just ignores them.
Real science doesn't label critics as "deniers".
No, but it does label non critical denialists as deniers.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Oh spot the deceptive little man here!
"Proven"? Talk about false or misleading claims! Not only has it not been proven, its adherents admit that their theories are unfalsifiable
Very clever! You put in a link that made it looked like you had a citation for how they admit that but all you did was link to "falsifiability". Very nice, and it's interesting that you have to resort to a deceptive style of arguing.
If for example the IPCC's pridictions of what was to happen in the future did not come to pass, that would be some falsifying evidence. However, when the future did arrive, it turned out that it fell within the confidence intervals of the IPCC's future predictions.
By the way, being needlessly contrarian does not make you smart.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You come across as insulting, smug, and condescending. Is it any wonder that your type have pushed people to extreme denial? It would be better if you just remained quiet and let others do the explaining.
Imagine if Carl Sagan used the language or tone that you did? We'd be in the dark ages. You aren't helping.
My money is on both. [Insert "Why not both?" meme here]
The real test is have Democrats PERSONALLY changed to reduce carbon emmissions? No. Theres your proof of their real belief in CCS. They will state 'but it is all them big corps. Not me.' All the while theyre not practicing what they preach.
My belief is in the Holy Bible, a book of God's love for man, a document of history that many have failed to discredit thru 7000 years. Your religion, Global Warming, has been discredited by NASA, "98.5% or heat retention by earth is due to water in atmosphere". So you resort to your often used tactic of name calling. Your webs of misinformation are called webs. All webs discrediting global warming hoax are called ads. Brilliant. Works for Gore, does it not?
So you're going to screw over the planet
The science is settled on that you're lying. Google "Eocene thermal maximum" and stop hoping no one knows of it.
and a lot of humanity
The very same part of humanity that constantly declares their desire to kill every American? Good riddance.
To grasp the difference between climate and weather. Let that sink in.
Have you examined the much greater than 800000 years of cycles and events of atmospheric carbon loading? Or of industrial/civilizational revolutions and their effects?
It is quite obvious, I simply screwed up the link. This is, what I meant to include, separately from the link explaining, what falsifiability is, and why it is a requirement for real science:
And she is not alone in admitting, there is no — and there can not be — any proof. Interestingly, you chose to completely ignore the other link, which I did cite correctly, where a a DailyKos article admits to treating the question of Global Warming's existence as that of a deity. And Huffington Post concurs. (Hilariously, this entire approach was predicted by a satirist years earlier).
Interesting that you have to resort to a deceptive style of arguing: ignoring the inconvenient arguments completely, while pouncing on technicalities.
Our whole argument in this thread is that, by the purported scientists' own admission — now properly cited — their very discipline is not falsifiable. Your babbling about IPCC is not much different from the Bible-thumpers' predictions about His wrath.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Let me start by saying I'm not at all a climate change denier, I believe in man made global warming, because that's what the scientists tell me and who am I to argue.
With that said, isn't this how Google's PageRank algorithm (or its successor) works? A sites popularity is determined by the amount of sites linking to it. Unfortunately, I think there's just a lot of people who are climate change deniers who link to these sources.
Isn't this the obvious, simple answer?
Deny deny deny
Celestial Mechanics is the crowning glory of Newtonian mechanics. It has
revolutionized man’s concept of the Cosmos and his place within it. Its
spectacular successes in the 18th and 19th centuries established the unique
power of mathematical theory for precise explanation and prediction. In the
20th century it has been overshadowed by exciting developments in other
branches of physics. But the last three decades have seen a resurgence of
interest in celestial mechanics, because it is a basic conceptual tool for the
emerging Space Age.
The main concern of celestial mechanics (CM) is to account for the motion of
celestial bodies (stars, planets, satellites, etc.). The same theory applies to the
motion of artificial satellites and spacecraft, so the emerging science of space
flight, astromechanics, can be regarded as an offspring of celestial mechanics.
Space Age capabilities for precise measurements and management of vast
amounts of data has made CM more relevant than ever. Celestial mechanics
is used by observational astronomers for the prediction and explanation of
occultation and eclipse phenomena, by astrophysicists to model the evolution
of binary star systems, by cosmogonists to reconstruct the history of the Solar
System, and by geophysicists to refine models of the Earth and explain
geological data about the past. To cite one specific example, it has recently
been established that major Ice Ages on Earth during the last million years
have occurred regularly with a period of 100,000 years, and this can be
explained with celestial mechanics as forced by oscillations in the Earth’s
eccentricity due to perturbations by other planets. Moreover, periodicities of
minor Ice Ages can be explained as forced by precession and nutation of the
Earth’s axis due to perturbation by the Sun and Moon.
No, science doesn't even do that.
Science: This is what it looks like is going to happen (prediction)
Politics: You must change your behavior.
None of the older data shows rate of change.
... Orwell called it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
That's a really interesting point that the climate science community has discuss thoroughly over the past 30 years and understands. If you're interested in understanding why this lag has happened in the past, check out this:
https://skepticalscience.com/c...
That short story is that yes, CO2 has lagged behind temperature over the past several hundred thousand years because CO2 hasn't driven those temperature changes - those changes happened due to orbital variations. In fact, during those periods CO2 was released from the oceans due to the warming (hence the lag), and that release *amplified* the warming as a result.
So that very same historical record that you refer to provides evidence that releasing CO2 into the atmosphere can increase temperatures.
The fact that historical changes in temperature have not been initiated by CO2 increases does not speak to whether our current unprecedented rise in CO2 will initiate temperature rise. The fact that historical increases in CO2 have amplified temperature rises *does* speak to whether increases in CO2 cause temperature rises (they do).
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
Is it? Not according to this climate-scientist from Australia, nor according to this professor concurring with this blogger (both of them hilariously repeating in earnest this earlier satire).
No, I don't. As I explained to you before, the burden of proof is not on me, but on those, who want to compel me — on pain of higher taxes, loss of freedoms, and even actual criminal prosecutions — to change my way of life.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
We badly need Licensed Speech. Free Speech is evil. Brought to you by Cultural Marxists International Inc, with kind support from Banksters International.
We could only hope they are coming to an end, because we are past due for another minimum.
According to
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energieverbrauch#Herkunft_der_Primärenergie
(Table "Primärenergieverbrauch in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland")
the amount of fossile fuel consumption has not changed much in the last few years. And renewables are still just 1/20 of fossiles.
Also note that wind+solar wildly fluctuates, because sunshine and wind fluctuates wildly. Even if you take the entirety of Germany and take the average. (see "tatsächliche Produktion Solar" and "tatsächliche Produktion Wind" for raw data; play with the dates)
Wind+Solar can only play a bigger role if either
A) Much more Gas is burned "on demand" during times of low sun and low wind. Putin is going to love this.
B) Huge pumped reservoirs are built. Think of a reservoir of 2000m radius and 100m height. Calculation: http://altwissenschaft.ddnss.de/StromSpeicher.html
It has the word denier in the title. If you think that's science rather than dogmatic politics, then this is no better than free republic.
I appreciate your civility, however I do not consider WaPo to be a credible news source(in general). Thank you for the response.
>How Climate Change Deniers Rise To the Top in Google Searches
Posted as an article on slashdot, a controlled media distribution site.
Oh the irony. Kek.
Price Guarantees for nuclear generated electricity make much more sense than price guarantees for wind/solar power. Why ? Because nuclear power is highly predictable, unlike wind/solar.
(e.g. see https://www.energy-charts.de/power_de.htm?source=conventional&week=43&year=2017, fluctuates between 5MW and 45MW)
What we see here is a win for German romanticism and British rationality. The Green Maoists have won over a gullible German populace.
There's nothing unscientific about calling someone a denier. Or a conspiracy theorist, my preferred term.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I doubt it. The sun is a G-type main sequence star. It's normal evolution means that it gets hotter and larger as it ages although at the current stage it is a very slow process.
Your statistic shows the entire primary energy consumption, not just for electricity. That's heavily skewed towards fossil fuels in all countries due to the reliance of transport on fossil fuels. It includes energy use by planes, ships, cars, but also process energy and residential heating, i.e. stuff that never used nuclear energy. The stats I listed are accurate. The year-round average of renewable sources in the electricity (!) mix is above 30%, fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) amount to 50% of the electricity production in Germany. Of the 6.6MWh used per capita and year in Germany, 3.3MWh are sourced from fossil fuels. In contrast, of the 12MWh per capita and year in the US, 7.2MWh are sourced from fossil fuels (60% in the US electricity mix). But as is tradition among cocksure simpletons, you shouted "FALSE" as loudly as you could and presented the wrong statistic.
It is so simple to see that climate scientists donâ(TM)t have an inkling of a clue as to the cause of climate change. Climate change is obviously happening, we just donâ(TM)t have any real evidence as to the true cause. Example: CO2 levels only rise after warming occurs, not the other way around as some scientists ascertain. That basically sinks their entire argument, They need to do more research, bottom line.
If CO2 levels always lag temperatures then I want to know what was the warming that caused the current rise in CO2 to levels that are unprecedented in over a million years? It's one thing to make that claim but another to back it up with actual evidence.
Climate change science is actual Rock, Fucking. Solid. Iim going to show you right now that it is. I expect a full apology tio everyone from you. I expect you to change there narrative, and I expect you to stop spreading the FUD.
If you don't do that, your just a lying, moronic, troll, SOB who should be allowed anywhere near the internet.
Ready?
anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts of AGW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
And no top of that, its the lower half* of the atmosphere that warming; which is another piece of scientific data that proves it's not externals.
SO, whats all the scientific discussion about, you may be asking?
It's about details, not IF but detail of what it's going to do. Example:
If it's 30C out side, and you put an ice cube on the sidewalk. would you argue it won't melt? Of course not, it would be a foolish thing to argue. Now, which bit will melt first? how much? will it crack? where will it crack? how does the temperature going from 30C at rising to 31C going to effect it?
THAT"S the discussion, not whether or not its going to warm up.
Not that In really expect you to allow data and science to change your emotional based greedy ass argument, but may people who can actually apply new data to their narrative might try to understand, you dipshiot.
*approximation for brevity.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Google doesn't censor the internet.
You are free to build you own person search engine, or use BING, or what ever. Google is NOT THE INTERNET.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I see, you think concern over high taxes and loss of freedom overrides scientific evidence. Just wait and see how much it costs you in money and freedom as the effects of global warming and climate change continue to mount.
I don't understand what Pascal's wager has to do with falsifiability. It is merely a tool that someone without understanding might use to establish their position.
As far as your first link, models don't need to be falsifiable. Climate science doesn't depend on models. They are tools that scientists use to help understand the system. The things geekoid listed are the sorts of things that need to be falsified.
Aww, is the snowflake offended by a little strong language?
The "extreme denialists" can't face up to the facts because it would upset their precious worldview, not because all the patient explaining is starting to sound a little exasperated.
"Let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline?"
'Nuff said.
If you don't know where that quote comes from, then you are either an idiot, in denial, or you are a criminal leftist authoritarian hell bent on controlling other people's lives to meet your ideology.
Do you have published, peer reviewed research that supports that?
Yes, but THEY are suppressing it. You know how it is.
Global warming has happened since the beginning of time, itâ(TM)s inevitable. The world wonâ(TM)t melt and drown, we wonâ(TM)t freeze into oblivion, itâ(TM)s just going to vary by a couple degrees here and there and in some places at some times. Yâ(TM)all worry too much. I for one would love it to be +5F here in the north ;)
I'd watch that movie to be honest.
Read some of the several thousand published scientific papers if you don't trust WaPo. You can even download data and models to run yourself, if you have a spare supercomputer.
Actually, rational evaluation of the actions of the "critics" is what labels them as "deniers". If you aren't interested in the truth or the facts, but only in advancing a political position that denies the existence of facts and knowledge, what else should we call you?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
No, science doesn't even do that.
Science: This is what it looks like is going to happen (prediction) Politics: You must change your behavior.
So...
Science: If you deny reality, make up arguments, pretend to be care but refuse to ever justify your own position with any evidence, you will be labeled a denier?
Politics: Nu-uh, because Fake News! Chinese Conspiracy! Climategate!
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Thanks for finally realising that they aren't skeptics but in fact deniers. It's pretty much the definition of skeptical that you change your mind when faced with evidence. To not do so makes you a denier.
Don't listen to the scientists, for they are false gods. The One True God promised us we will be OK this time.
There was that flood a while back, but He's promised to be cool this time. Don't ask too many questions. God knows all. God works in mysterious ways. Now run along little boy, don't forget to say your prayers.