How Climate Change Deniers Rise To the Top in Google Searches (nytimes.com)

Someone said once... by 110010001000 · 2017-12-29 10:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

""He who controls the medium controls the message. He who controls the message controls the masses."

The NY Times hates competition.

Re:Someone said once... by davide+marney · 2017-12-29 11:35 · Score: 2, Funny

"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."
I love the phrase, "established climate science". Feynman would have used it in a lecture.

--
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Re: Someone said once... by Monster_user · 2017-12-29 12:48 · Score: 1

"He who controls the medium controls the message. He who controls the message controls the masses."

In this case Google is allowing each individual to "control" their own media. If the messages surrounding that individual are otherwise controlled, then that influence trends into Google's system. Such results in Google being "controlled" or influenced by sources outside of the user. This is the nature of the USA, for better or worse.
Re: Someone said once... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 14:58 · Score: 0

I donâ(TM)t remember ticking a box that says âoeonly show me stuff I already agree withâ.
Re: Someone said once... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 16:16 · Score: 0

zing
Re:Someone said once... by phantomfive · 2017-12-29 16:49 · Score: 1, Troll

I really like this Feynman quote, too:

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Someone said once... by Altrag · 2017-12-29 20:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

That quote is rather irrelevant, unless you've got a few spare Earths laying around to run experiments on..?
Assuming you don't, our next best option is to model the data we have as accurately as possible and make predictions based on those models.
So far all of the models predict "we're fucked if we don't change our ways" even if they don't all agree on how badly or how soon we're fucked, with some even suggesting we're past the point of changing our ways and fucked no matter what.
There's a reason why the climate scientists (and yes, I feel justified using the generalized term!) report actual data generated from actual models while the deniers tend to go with things like opinion polls -- the deniers just don't have a whole lot of data to work with and much of what they do have is pretty questionable.
Re:Someone said once... by phantomfive · 2017-12-29 20:31 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Assuming you don't, our next best option is to model the data we have as accurately as possible and make predictions based on those models.
The computer models we have are inaccurate, as has been demonstrated in multiple peer reviewed papers.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re: Someone said once... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 20:46 · Score: 1

All models are somewhat inaccurate, but the current models are broadly in agreement with observation, and have been for thirty years on a global scale.
Re:Someone said once... by Eunuchswear · 2017-12-29 21:37 · Score: 2

All models are inaccurate, some are more accurate than others.
Multiple peer reviewed papers have proved that the current climate models are actually rather good.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re:Someone said once... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 21:52 · Score: 0

Fact is that ALL of the predictions made by these models in the past have been wrong. By a mile..
Why would their predictive powers suddenly change?
Re:Someone said once... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 22:18 · Score: 1

The computer models we have are inaccurate, as has been demonstrated in multiple peer reviewed papers.
The computer models we have are models. All models are "inaccurate". The only question is how much. Our climate models which predict an increase in the temperature of the earth as humans increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere have been shown to be some of the least inaccurate available. They do have problems and it seems that the warming effect is actually stronger than predicted by those models, however they are the best we have at this point.
Here's a good article explaining a bit more about climate models and here's an article about the surprising accuracy of those models.
Re:Someone said once... by riverat1 · 2017-12-29 22:19 · Score: 2

"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."
I love the phrase, "established climate science". Feynman would have used it in a lecture.
I think it is pretty funny when climate science deniers try to use Feynman quotes to discredit climate science. I really doubt he'd be on your side in the issue. I think he'd ask you "Where is your evidence?" But I could be wrong.
Re:Someone said once... by riverat1 · 2017-12-29 22:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

When the observations are still within the 95% confidence range I'd say it's difficult to call them wrong.
Re:Someone said once... by KeensMustard · 2017-12-29 22:41 · Score: 1

So the situation could be worse than the models predict?
Re:Someone said once... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 23:25 · Score: 0

> So far all of the models predict "we're fucked if we don't change our ways"
You are wrong. We are fucked. There was a deadline and we are well past it. My estimate is that the end of world will happen within 10 years. I know how we could prevent it, but it is not realistic plan as it would require international cooperation.
Re: Someone said once... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 00:34 · Score: 0

Yes. Or better.
That's the entire point.
"The science is settled!" is an obvious lie, because it is not settled, or even fully understood. It demands rigorous ongoing testing, improvement, and debate.
Some people don't want that, however, because they're more afraid of being wrong than knowing the truth. Most of them voted for Hillary.
Re:Someone said once... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 02:23 · Score: 0

Current computer models are broadly in disagreement with historical climate data. Manifestly so. Computer models are in sharp agreement with agenda-centric Trotsky warmists. A physical scientist like myself - - able to technically review both measurements & calculations - - broadly suspects the AGW content & messengers of such wandergeist pandering theories.
Re: Someone said once... by fortfive · 2017-12-30 02:23 · Score: 1

My speedometer is also inaccurate; wildly so when iâ(TM)m in court on a speeding ticket.
Re: Someone said once... by PoopJuggler · 2017-12-30 03:17 · Score: 1

I will never understand how people as stupid as you exist.
Re:Someone said once... by Bartles · 2017-12-30 05:20 · Score: 1

They are barely still in the 95% confidence range. But you seem to think that means they are 95% accurate, which couldn't be farther from the truth.
Re:Someone said once... by Bartles · 2017-12-30 05:22 · Score: 1

It's funny when propagandists have to label skeptics as deniers. They spout dogma, not science.
Re: Someone said once... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 05:28 · Score: 0

You dont prove a negative
Re:Someone said once... by riverat1 · 2017-12-30 06:59 · Score: 1

Actually during the past few record hot years the observations are firmly in the middle of the confidence range. Climate model projections compared to observations
In one sense climate is the envelope within which weather is expected to vary. As long as 95% of the observations are within the 95% confidence range of the models then they are doing a reasonable job.
Re:Someone said once... by riverat1 · 2017-12-30 07:04 · Score: 1

Real skeptics are willing to accept the evidence when it is presented to them. Witness the BEST project.
As for Feynman he may well have criticized climate scientists but he would have been even more critical of the "skeptics" because they bring no evidence to the table.
Re: Someone said once... by phantomfive · 2017-12-30 07:46 · Score: 1

I can't imagine what you are trying to imply with this analogy. You must not have confidence in your belief, otherwise you would out and say it, instead of hiding behind dumb examples.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Someone said once... by phantomfive · 2017-12-30 07:46 · Score: 1

You make that comment frequently.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Someone said once... by phantomfive · 2017-12-30 07:47 · Score: 0

Multiple peer reviewed papers have proved that the current climate models are actually rather good.
This is an out and out lie.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Someone said once... by KeensMustard · 2017-12-30 08:01 · Score: 1

I don't like to disappoint.
Re:Someone said once... by phantomfive · 2017-12-30 08:11 · Score: 1

Excellent, well done.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re: Someone said once... by fortfive · 2017-12-30 09:41 · Score: 1

Ok. I believe in science, and i believe you vary your interpretation of the evidence based on a preconceived conclusion of your own.
I also doubt your cognitive ability, based on your inability to understand how my analogy applied to you.
Good day, sir.
Re: Someone said once... by phantomfive · 2017-12-30 13:09 · Score: 0

Ok. I believe in science
I doubt it. If I showed you several scientific papers, you would immediately try to explain them away. What you believe in is scientism.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Someone said once... by Altrag · 2017-12-30 21:20 · Score: 1

I don't suppose you'd like to post some links? Perhaps reference some peer-reviewed papers supporting your position? Or at least an article from a well-respected science journal? Given that the models are built on historical data, I'd be quite surprised if they somehow don't line up with it. Of course the models probably don't take into account things like major meteor strikes to any great degree, meaning they'll definitely start to diverge around 65m years ago, as there's no point bothering to model an event that's (almost) entirely unpredictable, only happened a handful of times in Earth's entire history, and we couldn't avoid or prevent if it happens again. There's probably other less drastic events that aren't modeled either which would cause diversions but you know what.. the people building the models will account for that, if by no other means than simply stating "this model doesn't account for volcanic winters so it won't be entirely accurate before 1816" or whatever similar wording.
And yes, sometimes specific models are drastically wrong (because they predict something that didn't happen, or fail to predict something that did.) Those get discarded as they should. To claim that all models are wrong just because some are wrong is disingenuous at best. Most of the time even the "wrong" models are pretty close and only need a few tweaks to account for new data -- just like in any other scientific field.
And its hardly a surprising leap of logic for computer models to be in agreement with "warmists." There's a dead simple explanation for that -- the "warmists" are correct! That's why you need data to back up these claims.. you can make a model showing anything you feel like if your only concern is "make it say what I want it to say?"
Of course, perhaps you prefer to just arbitrarily state you're a physical scientist (behind an AC post no less) and throw out a baseless claim without evidence? Ahh that's the good stuff!
Re: Someone said once... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-31 02:15 · Score: 0

Most of the world is actually interested in preventing climate change from happening. If even it's for selfish reasons (like having to deal with Refugees and the aftermath of natural disasters), most except the USA are still in the Paris Accord and trying to keep to the provisions.
Re:Someone said once... by AutodidactLabrat · 2017-12-31 14:46 · Score: 1

It already is.
Re:Someone said once... by Eunuchswear · 2017-12-31 20:46 · Score: 1

No, it isn't.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re:Someone said once... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-31 23:03 · Score: 0

So far all of the models predict "we're fucked if we don't change our ways" even if they don't all agree on how badly or how soon we're fucked,
Sadly, every change proposed reads to me as "let's fuck ourselves harder and sooner". The calls for international agreements and rules, for taxes and restrictions, are calls for the consolidation of power on a global scale. I understand that you're terrified of climate change. Please try to understand that I am equally terrified of world government and that I'll reject any proposal that addresses your fear while exacerbating mine.
Perhaps the best solution is to simply allow climate change to play out. After all, it is better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees.
Re:Someone said once... by phantomfive · 2018-01-01 07:56 · Score: 1

Then link to the papers, I'll read them.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Someone said once... by KeensMustard · 2018-01-01 09:16 · Score: 1

Sadly, that is true, at least according to some research.
I just find it weird that when people say "the models are inaccurate" somehow it must mean there isn't a problem. If the models aren't reliable we actually have a bigger problem than we though.
Re:Someone said once... by Eunuchswear · 2018-01-01 20:10 · Score: 1

Just google "climate model agreement".

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re:Someone said once... by phantomfive · 2018-01-01 20:18 · Score: 1

Yeah, I didn't think you could link to papers. You get all your info from blogs, that's your problem.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Someone said once... by Eunuchswear · 2018-01-01 21:00 · Score: 1

I can't link to papers?
You started this thread with the unjustified claim:

The computer models we have are inaccurate, as has been demonstrated in multiple peer reviewed papers.
Where are the links?
This is a pretty fair summary of your posting history, unsupported claims followed by demands that others provide evidence to back their points when you are challenged.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re:Someone said once... by tbannist · 2018-01-02 04:37 · Score: 1

Here's an article explaining why your "climate models are inaccurate" assertion is wrong.
Here's a paper for CMIP5 and here's the Chapter of the AR5 assessment on climate-model agreement.
I don't expect you'll actually read them, though.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re: Someone said once... by tbannist · 2018-01-02 04:39 · Score: 1

I doubt it. If I showed you several scientific papers, you would immediately try to explain them away. What you believe in is scientism.
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:Someone said once... by tbannist · 2018-01-02 04:42 · Score: 2

It's funny when propagandists have to label skeptics as deniers. They spout dogma, not science.
Of course. The fact that "they spout dogma, not science" is exactly why they are called deniers, and not skeptics.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:Someone said once... by Bartles · 2018-01-02 04:51 · Score: 1

Thanks for reinforcing my point.
Re:Someone said once... by phantomfive · 2018-01-03 16:33 · Score: 1

First I want to point out that you are the first person here to actually link to the study. Well done! I like you so much I don't even want to argue. But we ought to discuss something, otherwise the whole thing is for naught.

The paper you linked to says that although model resolution has increased (basically, computing power), the range of projected temperature change has not narrowed. I don't disagree with that.

The IPCC report is merely a compilation (albeit a useful one) based on studies that have been published. Since AR5, a number of new studies have come out that the IPCC report was not able to take advantage of (because they didn't exist). This one showing that the models overestimate, for example, and this one trying to explain the overestimation are enough to give you an example.

So now it is on you. How do you integrate those two studies I linked to into your worldview?

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Someone said once... by tbannist · 2018-01-04 03:01 · Score: 1

As usual, you know nothing and understand less.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:Someone said once... by tbannist · 2018-01-04 08:51 · Score: 1

Both of those papers deal with overestimation for a particular 15 year period (1998 - 2013) and the second is based on tropospheric satellite measurements rather than ground temperature measurement like the first study. There have are disputing papers that say the divergence is within the bounds of natural variability, and this nature article seems to sum up the divergence issue: "There is no evidence for a change in the long-term warming trend, he says, and there are always a host of reasons why a short-term trend might diverge — and why the climate models might not capture that divergence."
In any case, there have been multiple developments that indicate that the temperature record was biased low over the period both your papers consider in several areas: ocean warming, temperature coverage at the poles, and systematic errors in satellite measurements. Each of which has been found to have a small, but significant, effect on the temperature record. It doesn't look like Fyfe and company have released a new paper that accounts for those issues, yet.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical

Why the goal post shift? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 10:46 · Score: 0, Troll

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.

Re:Why the goal post shift? by ShanghaiBill · 2017-12-29 11:37 · Score: -1, Redundant

there are a lot of people making a lot of money and fame
Who's making a lot of money? If they are so famous, how come you can't name any of them?
The big money is on the denialist side. The Koch brothers made $6B last year.
Re:Why the goal post shift? by Tenebrousedge · 2017-12-29 11:56 · Score: -1, Flamebait

You don't know shit about fuck, as the man said. AGW is a 100-year-old theory, and AGW and CC are distinct terms, both of which have been in use for decades. You are a lying sack of shit.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Re:Why the goal post shift? by ClickOnThis · 2017-12-29 12:15 · Score: 2

there are a lot of people making a lot of money and fame
Who's making a lot of money? If they are so famous, how come you can't name any of them?
The big money is on the denialist side. The Koch brothers made $6B last year.
This. Climate scientists are not making lots of money. They survive on modest-sized grants to do their research. Competition for grants is significant. Not a great way to get rich.
And before the deniers reply with apoplectic rants about how scientists are compromised by their need to compete for research money, let's remind ourselves that science, like all human endeavours, has its flaws and bad actors, but it has adopted a self-correcting discipline that seeks and reviews experimental/observational validation for its claims. Over time, our knowledge of the natural world improves thanks to science. And that happens despite the bad-faith actions of deniers who try to discredit it with false or irrelevant arguments.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:Why the goal post shift? by Z80a · 2017-12-29 12:42 · Score: 2

The ones profiting off Climate change are the sleazy politicans that use it as a bludgeoning weapon and scam companies like the solar roadway bullshit, which in turn is used by the deniers as a weapon to prove they're right as "only scammers support the hypothesis".
And then we all burn to death in the end because nobody was actually interested in fixing the shit.
Re: Why the goal post shift? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 13:13 · Score: 0

They do make a lot of money, unlike real scientists that have to compete for the leftovers, the politcorrrect crowd just gets the lion share of the grants. That's how science is being controlled.
Re:Why the goal post shift? by harvey+the+nerd · 2017-12-29 14:08 · Score: 2

... or more likely, freeze.
Re:Why the goal post shift? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 14:20 · Score: 0

First it was global warming. Then that wasn'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 can't even be consistent about.
It was a Republican political strategy to call it "climate change" instead of "global warming":
In a 2002 strategy memo for the Republican Party, political strategist Frank Luntz recommended, "It's time for us [the GOP] to start talking about climate change instead of global warming. ... 'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming.' ... While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change sounds a more contollable and less emotional challenge."
Re: Why the goal post shift? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 14:39 · Score: 0

Itâ(TM)s cool that you resort to profanity in response to a legitimate question. Thank you for solidifying my stance.
Re: Why the goal post shift? by Tenebrousedge · 2017-12-29 15:19 · Score: -1, Troll

It's not a legitimate question, it's a worn-out lie. Which you are spreading because, "Fuck you, that's why. Lieberul idjit."
Theories of climate change were needed to explain ice ages long before anyone thought that humans could cause warming. The two theories evolved separately until about 1950 or so, when clear evidence started to emerge that supported both ideas. The terms are only synonymous when describing the modern era. The only one who has ever proposed using one term in favor of the other was Republican advisor Frank Luntz.
That you're a disgusting liar is no one else's fault. You don't like being called out for it? Then stop being a lying fuck.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Re: Why the goal post shift? by Reverend+Green · 2017-12-29 15:34 · Score: 1

Wow, you really come off as a petulant dunce.
Re: Why the goal post shift? by Tenebrousedge · 2017-12-29 15:47 · Score: 1

Sorry, did you have lies of your own to add, or were you just fucking off?

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Re: Why the goal post shift? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 16:20 · Score: 0

He might be a petulant dunce, but he's a correct petulant dunce.
Re: Why the goal post shift? by Reverend+Green · 2017-12-29 21:20 · Score: 0

Yup, a petulant dunce.
Go back to Reddit.
Re: Why the goal post shift? by riverat1 · 2017-12-29 22:45 · Score: 1

They do make a lot of money, unlike real scientists that have to compete for the leftovers, the politcorrrect crowd just gets the lion share of the grants. That's how science is being controlled.
An assertion without evidence to back it up. Really just an assumption on your part. You know that the grants, at least from the Federal Government are all listed in detail on line. Why hasn't some person making this assumption actually done the work to compile and correlate the data about these grants to prove their assumption? Could it be they're afraid of being proven wrong?
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if a few people have started to put it together then quietly dropped the idea after looking at the grants that got approved or denied.
Re:Why the goal post shift? by riverat1 · 2017-12-29 22:49 · Score: 1

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.
What goal post shift? The International Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988.
In 1956 Gilbert Plass wrote a paper titled: "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change".
Climate change is a result of the global warming that is happening.
Re: Why the goal post shift? by Schmorgluck · 2017-12-30 08:26 · Score: 1

On top of that, when scientists started going public about Global Warming, many idiots like the one you're answering to were all "nifty, nothing wrong with the weather being less cold" or "nuh huh, can't be true, there are more cold waves than, like, ever", not understanding what it was about (nor how a fridge works). The switch to privileging the term Climate Change was a communication move to mitigate confusion in layfolks, which was spinned by denialists as "moving the goalposts".

--
There's nothing like $HOME
Re: Why the goal post shift? by Tenebrousedge · 2017-12-30 11:12 · Score: 1

I've forgotten more about this subject than you will ever know, and insults are not a rebuttal. I'm sorry you don't like easily-verifiable facts. Reality's well-known liberal bias is so inconvenient.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Re: Why the goal post shift? by Reverend+Green · 2017-12-30 18:18 · Score: 1

That's some nice fundamentalist religious zealotry you've got there, bromeister.
Re: Why the goal post shift? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 23:17 · Score: 0

Maybe it is lucrative in the USA, but in the UK the head of a centre of excellence or department might get something as high as $120k, including benefits, for managing two or three dozen staff, and a research programme. Research assistants get half that if they are lucky, and maybe a three year contract. It is neither big bucks, nor secure, for people with good physical science and mathematical skills, and often parallel programming expertise, who can typically earn more working for a bank or insurance firm.
Re: Why the goal post shift? by Tenebrousedge · 2017-12-31 09:34 · Score: 1

Ad hominem. Do better.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Re: Why the goal post shift? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-01 16:14 · Score: 0

Son, I'm not interested in a polite debate. You don't don't deserve that, because you aren't polite to others.
Now take your knuckle dragging, malodorous carcass and drag it back to Reddit. There you are free to scream your officially approved virtue signaling rants, and the peanut gallery will roar their approval.
Here on Slashdot you're just an annoyance, like a fly buzzing around a picnic. Get lost, you're not wanted here.
Re: Why the goal post shift? by Tenebrousedge · 2018-01-01 18:51 · Score: 1

Flattery will get you nowhere.
You're not interested in a debate, because you are incapable of advancing an argument.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Re: Why the goal post shift? by Reverend+Green · 2018-01-03 12:49 · Score: 1

Or maybe it's because I'm not paid by a bigmoney PR firm to "discuss" this matter in the most annoying possible way, whereas you are.
Re: Why the goal post shift? by Tenebrousedge · 2018-01-09 10:46 · Score: 1

Yes, facts are quite annoying to you. Makes it a lot harder for you to lie about things when any fool can use Google to prove you wrong.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Re: Why the goal post shift? by Reverend+Green · 2018-01-09 18:00 · Score: 1

Well, you're definitely a fool, we agree on that...
Re: Why the goal post shift? by Tenebrousedge · 2018-01-09 19:35 · Score: 1

Whereas you are simply a liar.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Re: Why the goal post shift? by Reverend+Green · 2018-01-09 19:41 · Score: 1

Says the shill.

I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 10:47 · Score: -1, Offtopic

I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot.

Things haven't always been good around here, but I think they're looking bleaker than they have in a long time. Today has been a particularly bad day. We've been subjected to one useless political submission after another.

I think it's almost as bad as during the Slashdot Beta era. But even then, although the Beta web site was shitty, at least the submissions then weren't as obviously biased and political as they tend to be today, and the discussion was tolerable.

There are some other sites out there, but I'm not impressed with them.

Hacker News doesn't cut it. There's far too much censorship there, in my opinion. It's not what I'd consider an open discussion venue. If you don't partake in the established group-think, I think they will attack you and drive you out.

The same goes for Reddit. I find that too many of the subreddits are like Hacker News, with rampant censorship, and the only discussion that is allowed is sterilized drivel.

Don't even bother mentioning Soylent News. It might not be as horrible as Hacker News or Reddit, but I think it's still a joke of a site. Its moderation system is worse than here, and is often abused, based on what I've seen of it. It also often gets submissions on its front page well after they're on the front page here at Slashdot, and Slashdot isn't known for being particularly fast at reporting news! Soylent News is an example of exactly what not to do!

Pipedot is effectively dead at this point, I believe.

Basically what I want is a site that:

* Is focused on technology, science, mathematics, engineering, computing, programming, and relevant stuff like that.
* Allows anonymous commenting, because having to create an account is fucking stupid.
* Has little to no censorship, since the best discussion is free discussion where people don't fear being silenced for expressing their own opinion.
* Doesn't try to work politics into literally everything.

If anyone has any ideas, please let us know!

I don't think that Slashdot can be salvaged, at least not without firing all of the existing editors and replacing them with impartial, apolitical editors who aren't trying to attack President Trump and the Republicans, and who aren't trying to constantly push a leftist agenda.

Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 10:56 · Score: 0

Go back to 4chan.
Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 10:59 · Score: 0

Usenet
Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:12 · Score: -1

I agree with the previous speaker. /. used to ignore ALL the crap. "Stuff that matters" was stuff that mattered in the eyes of nerds. Not this crap tornado where there is not a single post on actual tech (No, not a press release or slashvertisments).
Real nerds do NOT CARE THAT YOU HATE TRUMP! We want to read shit that is truly interesting to us.
Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by PopeRatzo · 2017-12-29 11:14 · Score: 0

I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot.
Bye, Felicia. If you want, I'll write you a letter of recommendation.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2017-12-29 11:15 · Score: 2

Bring back kuro5hin.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:29 · Score: 0

I see that the racist also hates women.
Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by GameboyRMH · 2017-12-29 12:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by Mr307 · 2017-12-29 15:52 · Score: -1

I have been feeling exactly the same way for a few weeks now.
I am center left generally, but Slashdot continually pushing the partisan political agenda is getting tiring and off putting. Have always preferred the tech discussions, but many of those are being given a political slant now and i'm not interested.
This will all come to a head at some point as the dominant politically correct/cultural marxist/postmodernism tactic of our era is to engage in such a way as EVERYTHING is polarized and if you dont echo the dominant mobs views you must be a 'bad person', which obviously fails in practice, not that reality or reason will stop the flood in the short term.
Eventually these ways of thinking implode upon themselves, historically the cost is many lives, by some estimates over 100M people have already suffered this fate in this century.
I am tempted to abandon Slashdot, as the signal to noise ratio of 'actually interesting' articles is very low, so would be interested in seeing anyones suggestions.
Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by Kohath · 2017-12-29 19:27 · Score: 1

Real science doesn't label critics as “deniers”. Politics in the name of science does that.
Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 21:34 · Score: 0

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.
Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by Eunuchswear · 2017-12-29 21:49 · Score: 1

Real critics of scientific theory don't deny reality and lie. Deniers do.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by Eunuchswear · 2017-12-29 21:52 · Score: 1

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
Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 22:40 · Score: 0

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.
Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by serviscope_minor · 2017-12-30 00:21 · Score: 1

Real science doesn't label critics as "deniers".
No, but it does label non critical denialists as deniers.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 02:59 · Score: 0

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.
Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by Bartles · 2017-12-30 05:36 · Score: 1

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.
Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by GameboyRMH · 2017-12-30 05:59 · Score: 1

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
Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by Bartles · 2017-12-30 08:58 · Score: 1

Do you have published, peer reviewed research that supports that?
Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by tbannist · 2018-01-02 05:07 · Score: 1

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
Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. by tbannist · 2018-01-02 05:11 · Score: 1

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

What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Seven+Spirals · 2017-12-29 10:47 · Score: 0, Flamebait

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.

Re: What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 10:56 · Score: -1, Troll

It's much worse than that. The real problem is how people calling themselves 'scientists', yet who at the same time refuse to allow their theories to be scrutinized, and who 'adjust' their collected data, and who claim that 'the science is settled', have managed to absolutely ruin the reputation of science and scientists in general. Scientists and researchers used to be among the most respected and trusted people around. Now they're seen more as minor political stooges and tyrants rather than as objective knowledge-seekers. Modern science is now considered a form of religion by many people because of how any sort of questioning is quashed, and how little trust people have in scientists.
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:01 · Score: 1

Then you're extremely short-sighted and frankly bad for the species.
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:18 · Score: -1

What are you going to do about it kike?
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:29 · Score: 0

So you're a moron and don't give a fuck about your children, and you've just shared this 'wisdom' with the whole world. Congratulation! With guys like you, the US is doomed.
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:29 · Score: 0

You're a perfect example of why things got so bad in the first place. You're like a fucking cancer cell that knows what its doing, knows that if it eventually kills its host, it's going to go with it, but still doesn't give a shit anyway.
You have every right to not give a damn. But I'll ask just one thing of you: Stay the fuck out of the way of those who do. Or you will have to be treated like every cancer cell should be treated.
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Howitzer86 · 2017-12-29 11:37 · Score: 1

My first thought of a response would be that I don't care what you believe. Matters of opinion aren't within our range of control except perhaps in aggregate through mass peer pressure.
It's better to turn masses, rather than worrying about individuals. No matter what we do, people will accept it over time simply due to the appreciable effects of climate change itself. If they don't, or it's too late, then the species at large deserve their fate. Earth will burn us off and the Holocene will end. This outcome is acceptable too.
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by quantaman · 2017-12-29 11:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
So you're going to screw over the planet and a lot of humanity to shake your finger in the face of "the far-left"? (actually, everybody but the far-right).

The extremists on both sides made it partisan.
No, the major corporations with a vested interest in a fossil fuel economy made it partisan.

The international idea that Americans should compensate the rest of the word for emitting CO2 earlier than them.
Not just Americans, also Europeans, Canadians, Australians, Japanese, and even Columbians. And the retribution for historical emissions is one way to frame it... if not for the obvious inconsistency with Japan's large contribution.
A better way to frame it is when there's an important job to do you suck it up and get it done. And if that involves wealthy countries lending assistance to poor countries who otherwise don't have the economic capacity to carry out those measures then you do it.

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.
And no rant against SJWs is complete without a completely unnecessary negative stereotype with just enough deniability so it isn't obviously racist.

--
I stole this Sig
Re: What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:46 · Score: 0, Troll

Odd you claim 'scientists' won't let you scrutinize their theories when the theories and the methods used to test the theories are published in journals that you can get free access to at your public library or via google scholar. Odd you claim you don't like adjusted data when both the raw and adjusted data as well as the source to the software used to make the adjustments is available to download for free from NASA, NCDC and the UK Met Office.
I guess you real problem is you been reading to much of wattsupwiththat.com or the cato institute. Stop quoting the likes Tony Watts, Chris Monckton, the Pielkie's and actually read what the scientist actually say about global warming.
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by RazorSharp · 2017-12-29 12:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is a problem with partisanship. That you would adhere to a position you know to be illogical simply for the sake of being consistent with your party of choice is sad. This attitude among elected officials is what drives partisanship and gridlock in Washington.
I'm a person that would be described as liberal, but I don't support gun control. Just because I think the NRA and many other anti-gun control people are stupid and annoying doesn't change my position. I'm also dismayed by some of the over-sensitivity on college campuses and in the media, but using pejoratives like "SJW" is divisive and does nothing to persuade others of this opinion.
Climate change matters. Not for the political victories of one party or another, but for the future of humanity. I don't want my children or maybe some day grandchildren to grow up in a world facing global catastrophe. Why would anyone want that? Political expediency doesn't justify immorality.

--
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2017-12-29 12:40 · Score: 1

An awful lot of religion in these replies.
Re: What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 13:07 · Score: 0

See how you got downmodded ? This is a perfect example of how climate change deniers operate. Suppress the truth.
Re: What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Jesus+H+Rolle · 2017-12-29 13:12 · Score: 1

Columbians
Colombians.
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 14:35 · Score: -1

It's pompous assholes like you that think your species can actually change the climate in a matter of years.
I'm glad you and your kind will die one day.
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 15:35 · Score: 0

Are you stupid? This is slashdot. He shared it with about 50 people.
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 15:46 · Score: 0

People are a virus. How about we find a new host? Then we can start over, and have enough space for the rapid breeding not to mention food..
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by drinkypoo · 2017-12-29 16:14 · Score: 1

It's pompous assholes like you that think your species can actually change the climate in a matter of years.
What species are you, Trumpanzee?
We could change the climate in a matter of years, but only if we worked together instead of spending all our time cutting one another down on Slashdot (etc.)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 16:38 · Score: 0

So what's your solution? I tried to participate in the discussion for awhile, but got "denier" screamed at me over and over for Daring to Question The Holy Truth, and so I view the climate change discussion as a big political clusterfuck.
Name real solutions, that will actually solve the problem.
Re: What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 16:41 · Score: 0

Down modded for being a liar, idiot, and pro-AGW faithful religious anti-science nutball.
Re: What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 16:45 · Score: 0

Wow, the uneducated millennial SJW racist religious clowns are out in force today!
You should've been modded funny +5. I got a good laugh from your ridiculous childish ignorant nonsense.
My 9 year old's puppy is smarter than you.
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 18:36 · Score: 0

There's plenty of solutions, ranging from carbon pricing to cap & trade to subsidising R&D of alternative technologies to full-scale climate engineering. Pick one that suits your political leaning, there's a potential solution for everyone. We can all happily discuss solutions.
The problem is when people keep objecting to the science that's telling us what the problem is - invariably with misunderstandings or cherry-picked data-points chosen in an attempt to muddy the vast amounts of clear evidence. Real climate scientists have long moved on from whether AGW is a thing, to details like where/when/how much. What we need is less denial of the problem, and more discussion of how to fix it.
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by KeensMustard · 2017-12-29 20:02 · Score: 1

So what's your solution? I tried to participate in the discussion for awhile, but got "denier" screamed at me over and over for Daring to Question The Holy Truth, and so I view the climate change discussion as a big political clusterfuck.
That doesn't make sense to me.
People express skepticism at your alternate theories, and call you names: and because they called you a name, it must be politically motivated? What?
That just doesn't make sense.

Name real solutions, that will actually solve the problem.
So: intuitively, if the high concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are causing a problem, wouldn't the resolution be to reduce the concentrations of those gases to more normal levels?
What's the issue?
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 23:35 · Score: 0

You don't clearly know what will happen because of the CO2 and climate change. Here is a summary:
- Best farming areas, about half of the land will turn into deadly desert, a place where no-one can live.
- All the fish will die
- Most animals and plants will die.
- Massive hunger based migration (half of the population will migrate, which will cause a lot of killing and war)
- Pretty much every city on the coast will go under the water (takes a little longer, can be only seen as floods that kill hundreds of people for now)
- More extreme weather conditions
- Tropical deceases and insects will move to the North and South where it is now warmer.
Re: What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 00:33 · Score: 0

Whatever makes you feel better, pathetic little online troll.
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 00:35 · Score: 0

No, I'm not stupid at all. Why did the little online troll ask?
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 02:47 · Score: 0

>but using pejoratives like "SJW"
Historically the term was not pejorative. BUT then the people discovered the ones calling themselves SJW: mostly people shooting insults, very aggressive whatever the reason - or no reason at all -- and leading public inquisitions. What a surprise the term is used now to describe irrational dogmatic aggressive behavior pretending having a moral high ground. 100% with me or you are against me.
Some recent examples:
- Laurier University Inquisition
- Bret Weinstein
I find the term SJW quite gentle to characterize this kind of behavior: url url
Re: What if I believe but don't give a damn? by RazorSharp · 2017-12-30 03:26 · Score: 1

I donâ(TM)t know about the history of the term, but I do know that in current usage itâ(TM)s used as a dismissive label. The OP, for example, was using it as a lazy way of dismissing his opponents without addressing the substance of their concerns. Most pejoratives donâ(TM)t historically begin as pejoratives. Regardless, itâ(TM)s the use of dismissive labels as a rhetorical strategy that I oppose (as should anyone who believes discourse ought to be governed by logic).

--
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 04:03 · Score: 0

A better way to frame it is when there's an important job to do you suck it up and get it done. And if that involves wealthy countries lending assistance to poor countries who otherwise don't have the economic capacity to carry out those measures then you do it.
Suck it up and get it done? Look, the best way to reduce the impact, if any, of humans on the climate, is to reduce the number of humans. If the continents of Africa and South America were exterminated of all human life, that would eliminate 20% of the world-wide population. (Those continents picked because they're the ones least able to fight off the extermination armies, and they have some of the highest birth rates. But please do be sure to call me racist anyway.) But genocide has such a bad name, doesn't it? After all, you'd feel bad about it, so we can't suck it up and do that important job.
Moving wealth around ain't going to do a damn thing about climate. That's why I personally don't believe any of the claims of the climate change scammers -- your proposed solutions will only put money in the pockets of the elites and a bit more money for the "scientists" who have long since sold their souls for grants.
Re: What if I believe but don't give a damn? by riverat1 · 2017-12-30 05:04 · Score: 1

It's much worse than that. The real problem is how people calling themselves 'scientists', yet who at the same time refuse to allow their theories to be scrutinized, and who 'adjust' their collected data, and who claim that 'the science is settled', have managed to absolutely ruin the reputation of science and scientists in general. Scientists and researchers used to be among the most respected and trusted people around. Now they're seen more as minor political stooges and tyrants rather than as objective knowledge-seekers. Modern science is now considered a form of religion by many people because of how any sort of questioning is quashed, and how little trust people have in scientists.
What a crock. Climate science is one of the most open sciences out there. You are welcome to scrutinize their theories but you need to use science to do it. The raw data is available. The reasons and ways they adjust the data are in the published literature. Climate science deniers are just butthurt because they have no effective way to counter the information climate scientists give us. If they did they would have used it by now. Refusing to accept the answers climate scientists present because you don't like the political implications is the opposite of science.
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by riverat1 · 2017-12-30 05:13 · Score: 1

It's pompous assholes like you that think your species can actually change the climate in a matter of years.
I'm glad you and your kind will die one day.
Pompous assholes like you who think your species can't change the climate in a matter of decades and centuries despite what the scientists tell you are going to die too. Given the future that climate scientists tell us is coming your group will probably dwindle to nothingness relatively soon.
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Bartles · 2017-12-30 07:06 · Score: 1

Every single one of those solutions is an authoritarian, redistributive, answer that gives more power to governments and less power to individuals. It's not surprising that it's the authoritarian left that keeps pushing climate change.
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by quantaman · 2017-12-30 09:01 · Score: 1

A better way to frame it is when there's an important job to do you suck it up and get it done. And if that involves wealthy countries lending assistance to poor countries who otherwise don't have the economic capacity to carry out those measures then you do it.
Suck it up and get it done? Look, the best way to reduce the impact, if any, of humans on the climate, is to reduce the number of humans. If the continents of Africa and South America were exterminated of all human life, that would eliminate 20% of the world-wide population. (Those continents picked because they're the ones least able to fight off the extermination armies, and they have some of the highest birth rates. But please do be sure to call me racist anyway.) But genocide has such a bad name, doesn't it? After all, you'd feel bad about it, so we can't suck it up and do that important job.
It depends.
If you're seriously suggesting genocide as a way to mitigate global warming then racist would be a charitable term.
But I suspect you're just offering up a dumb unrealistic extremist suggestion because you somehow think it indicates a weakness in my argument, in which case you're being a fool.
It would be like if your spouse said "If we're serious about sending our oldest child to University we wouldn't go on that extravagant vacation"
And you replied "Well if we're serious about saving money then we should just kill the youngest child!"
I hope I don't have to explain why that conversation would not go well.

--
I stole this Sig
Re: What if I believe but don't give a damn? by c6gunner · 2017-12-30 10:08 · Score: 1

Correct; this is why the anti-authority retards are never going to have any real role in shaping the world; because rolling out rapid change on a global level does actually require the concentration of power. That's why anarchism and fanatical libertarianism both fail.
Re: What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Bartles · 2017-12-30 10:11 · Score: 1

How about just some plain old liberalism?
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Schmorgluck · 2017-12-30 10:32 · Score: 1

Every single one of those solutions require collective effort, a notion that you scoff at because everything has to revolve around you.

--
There's nothing like $HOME
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by tbannist · 2018-01-02 06:36 · Score: 1

So what's your solution? I tried to participate in the discussion for awhile, but got "denier" screamed at me over and over for Daring to Question The Holy Truth, and so I view the climate change discussion as a big political clusterfuck.
Silly anonymous coward, they didn't call you names because you dared to question the truth. They called you names because you acted like an ass, insulted everyone who tried to help you and then repeated the exact same question after it had been answered the first six times. They don't hate you for questioning the truth, they hate because you're an awful person and everybody knows it.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re: What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-03 03:26 · Score: 0

Yes, I agree. If everyone was liberal enough to just pollute as much as they wanted without big government getting in the way and scientists telling us it's bad. The planet will take care of itself.
Thats why liberal China produces much less CO2 than authoritarian America.
lets all sing kumbaya in a liberal utopia. That will cool the planet for sure.
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-05 15:07 · Score: 0

You're confused, son. I'm talking about over the course of a few years, not just in the life of this thread.
I'm not sure who this was directed at, but it's pretty clear you're looking for someone else.

Capitalism by ceoyoyo · 2017-12-29 10:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Capitalism by Jane+Q.+Public · 2017-12-29 12:57 · Score: 1

Slashdot is a for-profit advertising company.
Re:Capitalism by phantomfive · 2017-12-29 16:51 · Score: 1

Either legislate unbiased search and advertising and give up the pretence of pure capitalism, or eat your dogfood and quit complaining.
If being hypocritical and complaining gets you what you want, people will be hypocritical and complain.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 10:53 · Score: 0

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?

Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 12:35 · Score: 0

Why would you use ads as a source of news? Is there something that I'm missing here
What you're missing is that a large proportion of the population is stupid. And all the different factions warring for the control of the world want these stupids on their side.
In case you hadn't noticed yet, the world is rulled by psychopaths, people for whom ethics and morals are only two more tools to achieve their goals.

These are ADVERTISING COMPANIES by michaelcole · 2017-12-29 10:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:These are ADVERTISING COMPANIES by geekoid · 2017-12-30 06:55 · Score: 1

The buggy whip is also technology.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

How dare Google present both sides! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 10:55 · Score: -1

How dare Google present both sides of the issue in search results! Climate change skeptics (deniers) should not be heard and should not have visibility in search results! People should only be presented with propaganda that supports that humans are causing climate change and there are dire consequences!

What the climate change supporters want is no better than the censorship in China. This is truly chilling.

Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:00 · Score: 0

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?

Re:Seriously? by Tenebrousedge · 2017-12-29 11:59 · Score: 0

The narrative has changed from "global warming" to "climate change".
No, it has not. They are distinct terms. Republican political advisor Frank Luntz did suggest that the Bush administration prefer the latter term to the former, but this has had zero impact on the scientific field. Also, you disgusting jackass, remind me what 'IPCC' stands for and when that organization was founded. Then go fuck yourself.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Re: Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 15:44 · Score: 0

Good morning, Ivan! How's the weather in Moscow today?
Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 19:15 · Score: 0

Science means you get to ask the questions and you don't get shouted down because you aren't with the hivemind
No, you only get shouted down if you a) keep asking the same questions that have been answered a hundred times already, and b) present zero new evidence to back your questions. Scientists don't have time to waste on foolishness like that. Come back with a study that can pass peer review, like the Berkeley Earth people did.

if you are defending a posture that you benefit from personally
Whereas postures that benefit the trillion-dollar fossil fuel industry are squeaky clean and unbiased, right?

It is totally unclear what the impact of human activity is.
No, it's very clear, and has been for decades.

they haven't been able to present a model that has been proven to be accurate
The models have proven surprisingly accurate, despite attempts to paint them otherwise. Learn what the models are for.

There has been plenty of "abrupt" changes in atmospheric composition and temperature in the past
Name one in the last few million years that's even close to the abruptness we're seeing today. There may not be anything like it in the entire record, short of a meteor impact.

Tactics employing vague statements and fear, uncertainty, and doubt should be very much familiar to old slashdoters
Indeed, you're employing them right now. No citations, no evidence, just vague accusations that attempt to cast doubt on established science.

The narrative has changed from "global warming" to "climate change"
Pure straw man. Both terms have been in use for decades, and both are even more true now than they were then.
Re: Seriously? by Tenebrousedge · 2017-12-29 20:12 · Score: 1

Yes, all facts you don't like are the work of Russian agents; it's not like this information can be trivially confirmed.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.

The system can be gamed. by Fly+Swatter · 2017-12-29 11:01 · Score: 1

In addition to already being an advertisement platform to sheep, this and more shocking news at 11.

Any room for a skeptic? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:01 · Score: 0

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.

Re:Any room for a skeptic? by riverat1 · 2017-12-30 05:52 · Score: 1

There is plenty of room for honest skeptics. But when you keep asking the same questions over and over because you don't like and won't accept the answers you get that is not skepticism. At some point you have to provide some scientific backing to your skepticism or your just a denier.

false or misleading by SuperKendall · 2017-12-29 11:02 · Score: 0, Troll

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

Re:false or misleading by Tenebrousedge · 2017-12-29 12:03 · Score: 0, Flamebait

You don't know dick about the science, deliberately. You've never read any of the major papers, and certainly can't describe the evolution of AGW from discredited nonsense to the overwhelmingly accepted theory. You have literally no idea what you're talking about, and you are merely trying to raise the specter of doubt. That your team has made ignorance a party plank does not actually affect reality.

--
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Re:false or misleading by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 12:21 · Score: 0

If you truly think the conclusions of experts in their own field is meaningless as the uninformed opinions of Joe Layman, you might as well just change your sig to "Science Denier and proud of it".
Scientific consensus is how every controversial theory, from heliocentrism to evolution to continental drift, has moved from "some evidential support" to "overwhelming majority of scientists are convinced by the evidence" to "accepted knowledge". What level of consensus do you need, 100%? Do you disbelieve these other theories too just because there are still a few crackpot holdouts?
Re:false or misleading by RazorSharp · 2017-12-29 12:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

When one isn't an expert in a certain field and lacks the time/ability/desire to become an expert in said field, it's only logical to defer to expert opinion. No one has the ability to be an expert in every field, so everyone has to do this if they want to have a somewhat coherent understanding of the world. Relying on scientific consensus is something everyone does to arrive at logical conclusions. Even scientists.

--
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Re:false or misleading by serviscope_minor · 2017-12-30 00:07 · Score: 1

Oh, my bad, you actually want to base results on popularity, not scientific validity.
You're basing your opinions on popularity too. You think going conter to the majority makes you smart. You also like having the opinion that's popular with people that you identify with politically.
Your opinions have NOTHING to do with scientific validity.
On the other side, the IPCC's first set of future predictions have matched what happened when the future arrived to within the confidence intervals.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:false or misleading by Bartles · 2017-12-30 08:09 · Score: 1

How many people did "experts" lobotomize in the 20th century?

Tragedy of the commons. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:05 · Score: 0

See subject.

I see by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:06 · Score: 0

Slashdot still likes to peddle psuedo-science.

The difference is... by Kludge · 2017-12-29 11:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:The difference is... by HornWumpus · 2017-12-29 11:10 · Score: 0, Troll

curated...LOL
Nope. That's gone.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:The difference is... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:25 · Score: 0

Idiot.
Re:The difference is... by 110010001000 · 2017-12-29 11:40 · Score: 1

100% agree. But Google is still a competitor. In fact, it is their biggest one.
Re: The difference is... by Jesus+H+Rolle · 2017-12-29 13:06 · Score: 2

You may not like the NYT, but they certainly do have editors who curate. Google is just an index of whatever is out there.
Re: The difference is... by Reverend+Green · 2017-12-29 15:30 · Score: 0, Flamebait

NYT is a semi-official propaganda organ.
Re: The difference is... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 17:47 · Score: 0

Democrats with Bylines.
Re:The difference is... by supercell · 2017-12-30 00:12 · Score: 1

NYT is the source of liberal political propaganda.
Re: The difference is... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 04:13 · Score: 0

So is reality.
Re: The difference is... by Kevin108 · 2017-12-30 05:01 · Score: 0, Troll

They curate articles that fit their bias. Even if they collect and publish a specific flavor of garbage, it's still garbage.

--

It's a perfect time for being wasted.
A perfect time to watch the stars.
- Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
Re:The difference is... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 06:18 · Score: 0

The NY Times is a source of curated information, curated to reflect a particular set of biases. Besides their bias about global warming, their coverage of global news has severe holes. That doesn't change that the internet is a cesspool. However, properly constructed search queries can find golden nuggets even in a cesspool.
On the other hand if skepticism of particular "climate change" predictions is deemed "climate change denial" by the Official Arbiters of Truth, then any skepticism of the conventional orthodoxy will be banished from the airwaves, not necessarily a result I would like to see.
Re: The difference is... by geekoid · 2017-12-30 06:37 · Score: 1

They don't publish garbage.
JFC you anti media idiots have gotten old already. Stop it.
Have you even read the SPJ code of ethics? do you even know how to apply it?
Fucking moron.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re: The difference is... by Kevin108 · 2017-12-30 06:42 · Score: 1

Your ad hominem makes for a convincing argument. Nice work!

--

It's a perfect time for being wasted.
A perfect time to watch the stars.
- Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
Re: The difference is... by ChatHuant · 2017-12-30 09:45 · Score: 2

They curate articles that fit their bias. Even if they collect and publish a specific flavor of garbage, it's still garbage.
The NY Times does not publish garbage; it's one of the few quality newspapers still available in the USA. They do lean left, but their articles are usually well researched, factual and professionally written. I find them similar to the Wall Street Journal, who leans right, but also usually has professionally written and well researched articles (you just need to ignore the batshit crazy editorial pages).
I find it's useful to get your information from diverse sources, in particular ones with whose position you disagree. I think it's obvious you don't do any such thing. In fact, your post tells us more about yourself than about the NY Times. Specifically, (and at the risk of getting accused of ad hominem attacks too), it shows you prefer truthiness to truth. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, but feel deeply about it. Maybe you'd be happier posting in the echo chambers where your Weltanschauung wouldn't risk being challenged.
Re: The difference is... by Kevin108 · 2017-12-30 10:18 · Score: 1

I agree with you more than I disagree. I'm basically anarcho-capitalist lolbertarian. Sharing memes that make fun of the establishment seems more useful than pointing out its legitimate flaws with facts and history. Ain't nobody got time for that. (meme)
I've read the Federalist Papers and I've read the Communist Manifesto. If you're going to have a position on something, you need to know why. I approach things with the idea that I should understand enough about a given issue to argue either side of the debate, or against both.
So yeah, I think we could have a beer and share a quality conversation. I still think NYT is garbage, as well as WSJ. At least you didn't call me names while we disagreed.

--

It's a perfect time for being wasted.
A perfect time to watch the stars.
- Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"

Uh... They are the same? by Kludge · 2017-12-29 11:10 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Global warming was proven, you ignorant toad.
And global warming is a kind of climate change. They are both correct.

Re:Uh... They are the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:17 · Score: 0, Informative

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.
Re:Uh... They are the same? by davide+marney · 2017-12-29 11:44 · Score: 0, Troll

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
Re:Uh... They are the same? by ClickOnThis · 2017-12-29 12:05 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
Re:Uh... They are the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 12:27 · Score: 0

Davide you are a retard. Human beings didn't have massive factories or automobiles for 800,000 years you ridiculous TWAT.
Re:Uh... They are the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 12:41 · Score: 0, Informative

Thats exactly his point you naive idiot...
Re: Uh... They are the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 13:09 · Score: 0

Man made Climate change is Proven in the same way It is proven that every workd in Bible is a literal truth.
Re:Uh... They are the same? by The+Cynical+Critic · 2017-12-29 13:11 · Score: 5, Informative

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."
Re:Uh... They are the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 13:35 · Score: -1

Yes, you are in large part correct, but according to this we are in our 7th cycle.
Notice on the incredibly rapid temperature increase each time the earth goes from cold to warm.
I've tried to present this graph before but it always seems to get edited out of slashdot.
Re:Uh... They are the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 14:23 · Score: 0

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.
Re:Uh... They are the same? by Xyrus · 2017-12-29 14:44 · Score: 3, Informative

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~
Re: Uh... They are the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 15:33 · Score: 0

Global warming was a hoax, you reeking turd.
Re: Uh... They are the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 16:30 · Score: -1, Troll

No, I don't need to cherry pick anything.
Hansen, Mann, Climategate. Done. It's a fraud.
Re: Uh... They are the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 16:32 · Score: 0, Informative

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.
Re:Uh... They are the same? by AmiMoJo · 2017-12-29 17:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

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
Re:Uh... They are the same? by hey! · 2017-12-29 18:42 · Score: 1

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.
Re: Uh... They are the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 18:43 · Score: -1

There is no spike. It is a fraud. A lie. Mann and Hansen and the scumbag liars in the U.K. Climategate email scandal made it up.
I know you're slow Ami so I will repeat: they made it up. It is a fact. The got caught lying and making stuff up. The data is faked. There is no man made warming. None. You have zero evidence that hasn't been tainted by Hansen and his ilk.
Re:Uh... They are the same? by KeensMustard · 2017-12-29 19:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?
Re: Uh... They are the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 20:11 · Score: 0

"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.
Re: Uh... They are the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 20:39 · Score: 1

Are you trolling or really just this stupid?
Re:Uh... They are the same? by Eunuchswear · 2017-12-29 21:43 · Score: 3, Informative

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
Re:Uh... They are the same? by riverat1 · 2017-12-29 22:22 · Score: 2

But it doesn't change for magical reasons. There are physical processes behind those changes. That is exactly what climate scientists study.
Re:Uh... They are the same? by riverat1 · 2017-12-29 22:25 · Score: 1

...
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.
Re:Uh... They are the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 23:19 · Score: 0

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...
Re: Uh... They are the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 00:42 · Score: 0

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.
Re: Uh... They are the same? by fortfive · 2017-12-30 02:30 · Score: 1

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?
Re:Uh... They are the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 02:55 · Score: 0

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.
Re: Uh... They are the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 03:54 · Score: 0

None of the older data shows rate of change.
Re:Uh... They are the same? by Bartles · 2017-12-30 05:23 · Score: 1

We could only hope they are coming to an end, because we are past due for another minimum.
Re:Uh... They are the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 05:53 · Score: 0

I appreciate your civility, however I do not consider WaPo to be a credible news source(in general). Thank you for the response.
Re: Uh... They are the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 07:43 · Score: 0

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.
Re: Uh... They are the same? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 19:39 · Score: 0

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.

Science? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:11 · Score: 0

Climate change is real! Science!
There are 50+ genders! REEEEEE

Global warming IS a hoax by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:13 · Score: -1

Record low temperatures worldwide today. We are headed for a Maunder Minimum. Sharks are freezing to death. The world is in store for a new ice age. Wealthy latte sippers, limp wristed swishers, constipated bueaucrats, and Hollywood has-beens fancy themselves "in the know" about "global warming", but they are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Facts are facts. The world is cooling down much faster than anticipated. Nary a sunspot has been visible this week. The world is becoming colder and darker. Burning carbon is actually beneficial because it gives us a chance to avert catastrophe if only we burn more.

Re:Global warming IS a hoax by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:42 · Score: 0

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.
Re:Global warming IS a hoax by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 13:02 · Score: 0

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?
Re:Global warming IS a hoax by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 13:18 · Score: 0

Why don't you get a real job and move out of mom's basement?
Re:Global warming IS a hoax by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 13:57 · Score: 0

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 !!!
Re:Global warming IS a hoax by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 15:57 · Score: 0

Wasn't there an article a week or so ago talking about the sun getting smaller and cooler?
Re:Global warming IS a hoax by riverat1 · 2017-12-30 06:07 · Score: 1

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.

Well played by PPH · 2017-12-29 11:15 · Score: 2, Funny

The AGW zealots posted this right when everyone else is too busy shoveling global warming out of their driveways.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:Well played by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:33 · Score: 0

I just came here for some linux and open source news, still waiting.
Re:Well played by Kohath · 2017-12-29 12:10 · Score: 1

That's when keeping the faith is most important. Any religious leader knows that.
Re:Well played by ClickOnThis · 2017-12-29 12:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

The AGW zealots posted this right when everyone else is too busy shoveling global warming out of their driveways.
Global Warming -> Climate
The stuff in your driveway -> Weather
Learn the difference. That is all.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:Well played by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 12:39 · Score: 0

Oh, look: a retard who doesn't understand statistics. Or much else.
Re:Well played by Gravis+Zero · 2017-12-29 12:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

The AGW zealots posted this right when everyone else is too busy shoveling global warming out of their driveways.
It sure reads like you don't understand the difference between climate change and the weather. The weather is going to become increasingly volatile which means you are going to get more extreme weather patterns (larger range of temperature) thus altering the climate. Ergo climate change. However, the overall temperature of the planet is still going to rise. Ergo global warming.
Please educate yourself on this very important topic.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Re:Well played by Alypius · 2017-12-29 13:05 · Score: 0

Oh look. Totalitarians don't like it when someone pokes fun at their dogma.
Re:Well played by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 14:46 · Score: 0

the difference between climate change and the weather
Climate is what you get when you apply increasingly larger fudge factors to the trends in weather.
Re:Well played by Xyrus · 2017-12-29 14:50 · Score: 1

Get used to it. The arctic displacement that is becoming the new winter normal is a direct result of global warming. Lower differentials between the arctic and tropics means a weaker polar jet. A weaker polar jet means the arctic air it used to keep bottled up in the arctic can be pushed south by warm air masses.
Take a look at a site like climate reanalyzer and check out the temperature anomalies. The cold blob over North America USED TO sit up in the arctic. But look what's up there now. Or look at the rest of the world as a comparison.
It's only going to get worse.

--
~X~
Re:Well played by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 15:59 · Score: 0

So getting hotter is Climate Change, colder is also Climate Change, and staying exactly where you are is Climate Change.
Congratulations! You won the Prophet of the Year award by declaring that every possible outcome proves you right.
Re:Well played by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 16:02 · Score: 0

So you're saying it's global cooling and not global warming?
Cool!
Re:Well played by drinkypoo · 2017-12-29 16:09 · Score: 1

So getting hotter is Climate Change, colder is also Climate Change, and staying exactly where you are is Climate Change.
In fact, we can expect all of those things to happen — but locally, and in different places. That's why we call weather a "chaotic" system. When you put energy into the system, you get unpredictable outputs.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Well played by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 18:11 · Score: 0

Tell that to CNN when they say Hot weather -> Climate, Cold weather -> Weather
Re:Well played by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 18:39 · Score: 0

The cooling is not global, idiot. Average global temperatures are rising as fast as ever, regardless of your local weather.
Re:Well played by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 18:49 · Score: 0

Getting hotter globally is expected from global warming. Getting cooler in localised places, while global average temperatures continue to rise, is also completely consistent with global warming, and entirely expected (hence the term "climate change").
If global average temperatures were to get cooler, consistently, at anything like the rate and timescale that they've been getting hotter, then global warming would be conclusively disproven. Let me know when that happens, I'll wait.
Re:Well played by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 20:22 · Score: 0

Meanwhile, at a place much further north than you are anywhere in the continental USA, we're having an abnormally warm December, wet and not white Christmas, with temperatures barely dipping below freezing if at all.
Riddle me that one, smart guy.
Re:Well played by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2017-12-29 20:24 · Score: 1

There's lots of science and news for nerds that doesn't involve Linux or Open Source, and always has been. Why should /. change that just to suit you?

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Well played by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 22:05 · Score: 0

The AGW zealots posted this right when everyone else is too busy shoveling global warming out of their driveways.
Global Warming -> Climate
The stuff in your driveway -> Weather
Learn the difference. That is all.
Record Cold -> Climate Too!
Re: Well played by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 03:50 · Score: 0

Go ahead and compare the number of cold records vs warm records recently, and you'll see why it's still called "global warming".
Re: Well played by JoeRobe · 2017-12-30 03:59 · Score: 1

Yes! This article is to my knowledge the best concise description of the warming trend as well as increase in extreme temperatures:
https://www.nytimes.com/intera...
It should be noted that this is just data. No models, no predictions, just historical data.

--
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
Re:Well played by geekoid · 2017-12-30 07:00 · Score: 1

You fucking Trumpanzees.
More warming means more moisture in the air.
More moisture means more snow when the more energetic lower atmosphere rush into the upper atmospheres, and is replaces by colder air.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Well played by mfearby · 2017-12-30 16:13 · Score: 1

For the AGW enthusiasts it's actually more like this:
Heat waves > global warming
Cold snaps > weather (even though they used to claim that snow was going to history by now)

Really Fake News From Climate Deniers ? by Crashmarik · 2017-12-29 11:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Really Fake News From Climate Deniers ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 12:19 · Score: 1

That story didn't say electricity is cheap in Germany, and while it did wrongly say that consumers were for a short while paid to use electricity, it reported an actual situation (not the first, btw.) where the wholesale price became negative due to a temporary glut of renewable energy. Electricity is "expensive" in Germany, but half of it is taxes. Those taxes are part of the reason why solar panels and wind turbines produce electricity so cheaply now that they are challenging the previously cheapest sources of electricity. What it all comes down to is that you need to have an education to make sense of the news. An idiot is always going to be misled six ways to Sunday. All news is partisan. That is hardly surprising. The problem is that some people peddle outright lies, like climate change denial. They're not just subjective through omission, simplification or mere choice of perspective. There is a difference between fake news and incomplete news.
Re:Really Fake News From Climate Deniers ? by Crashmarik · 2017-12-29 12:41 · Score: 1

From the story

The cost of electricity in Germany has decreased so dramatically in the past few days that major consumers have actually been paid to use power from the grid.

https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
Also if you are going to point out electricity is taxed you need to point out renewables are heavily subsidized
http://fortune.com/2017/03/14/...

There is a difference between fake news and incomplete news.
Ill go with

Half the truth is often a great lie
–Benjamin Franklin
Re:Really Fake News From Climate Deniers ? by ClickOnThis · 2017-12-29 13:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

What it all comes down to is that you need to have an education to make sense of the news.
You need an education to function in society. And IMHO, you should not need to pay beyond your means to receive it. And part of that education should be the ability to recognize rational, fact-based statements from skewed opinions laced with logical fallacies.

There is a difference between fake news and incomplete news.
This. And I'll go further: fake news is created by fake reporters. It is a deliberate fabrication, intended to enrage or frighten the reader. It is not the same as news with errors or even news with a bias. Incomplete news is still news, but with a disingenuous taint (if done deliberately.)
This is why fact-checking websites (like snopes or politifact) have a gradual scale on which they rate the truth of statements by public individuals, and not just a true/false assessment. The truth is an absolute, but how someone conveys it can be complicated.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:Really Fake News From Climate Deniers ? by will_die · 2017-12-29 13:44 · Score: 1

I like the ones that talk about how Germany is getting all its power from green power sources and how everyone can do. Then you look into it and the time was for around 10 minutes on a Sunday afternoon when most of the businesses are not operating and the cloud cover was low and there was a lot higher than average wind blowing all over all the country.
Re:Really Fake News From Climate Deniers ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 13:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

See, you can't objectively explain what's going on yourself, yet you act like any news that doesn't exactly report the entire story with all its nuances is just as bad as a bold faced lie. That's asinine.
It is true that the cost of electricity dipped below zero at the wholesale level, and there are indeed some large consumers of electricity who can take advantage of that. That is by design. The negative price represents the cost that some power plants would incur by throttling their output, as in, it costs more to produce less electricity. It's just cheaper to pay someone to consume the "unneeded" electricity. The story created the impression that average consumers got paid, and that was wrong, but the actual pricing event did occur, and not for the first time.
Electricity is heavily taxed in Germany, and renewables are heavily subsidized. Although, the actual legal construct is not a tax and not a subsidy. Is it acceptable to call it a tax anyway, or does that make it fake news? The subsidies are subsiding, and again, that is by design. As the cost of electricity generation from sun and wind is coming down, the need for incentives also decreases. Other forms of electricity generation have been heavily subsidized too. Nuclear for example enjoys government guarantees that, had they been provided by private enterprise, would render this form of electricity generation entirely uneconomical. The waste disposal costs have largely been externalized as well. The two new "British" nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point will receive 100 billion Euros in subsidies, according to the BBC. The consortium of French and Chinese investors got a price guarantee that is higher than for electricity from onshore wind turbines. There is also an agreement that the decommissioning and waste disposal costs are limited and any costs exceeding that limit will be borne by the public. So yeah, renewables are subsidized, but that too is "lying by omission". It would be news if they weren't subsidized.
It is important to understand that neither "half the truth is often a great lie" nor "lying by omission" is meant to legitimize actual lies. Climate change denial is not "lying by omission". It's lying. The truth can be used in much the same way as a lie, to mislead, but it is still the truth, not a lie, and that difference is important.
Re:Really Fake News From Climate Deniers ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 14:07 · Score: 2, Informative

And then you get the commenters who point out that Germany supposedly replaces nuclear with more fossil fuels, but they fail to admit that the share of electricity from fossil fuels is actually decreasing at the same time as nuclear is decreasing, and that the per capita electricity consumption from fossil fuels is 7.2MWh per year in the US, compared to just 3.3MWh per year in Germany. People in the US actually consume more electricity from fossil fuels than people in Germany consume in total (6.6MWh). The year-round percentage of electricity from renewable sources in Germany rose from negligible to 30% over the course of 15 years. The US is still at 15%. The US aren't even close to being able to run on solar and wind even on a Sunday afternoon with no cloud cover and higher than average wind.
Re:Really Fake News From Climate Deniers ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 15:43 · Score: 0

See, you can't objectively explain what's going on yourself, yet you act like any news that doesn't exactly report the entire story with all its nuances is just as bad as a bold faced lie. That's asinine.

The OP was pointing out deficiencies in the original. Little bit invested in the renewables narrative ?
Re:Really Fake News From Climate Deniers ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 15:45 · Score: 0

This. And I'll go further: fake news is created by fake reporters.
Just what is a "Real Reporter" ? Somebody who says things you like ?
Re:Really Fake News From Climate Deniers ? by ClickOnThis · 2017-12-29 16:08 · Score: 2

Just what is a "Real Reporter" ? Somebody who says things you like ?
A fair question. My answer: someone who has obtained a degree in journalism at an accredited school of higher learning, and who has demonstrated a commitment to reporting the truth, based on the standards of the profession of journalism.
TL/DR: those who propagated "pizzagate" were fake reporters. (You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.)
There are plenty of real reporters who propagate opinions I don't agree with. But I don't question the legitimacy of their reports, as long as they adhere to the principles of their profession: to verify their sources, and to clearly report the facts before they extemporize on them.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:Really Fake News From Climate Deniers ? by AmiMoJo · 2017-12-29 17:54 · Score: 2

Liar. Here is the story:
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
Note that it was not posted by MsMash. Also, it doesn't claim that electricity in Germany is cheap, you made that up too. All it says is that some big consumers (industries) were paid to use energy for a while, which is 100% true.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Really Fake News From Climate Deniers ? by Crashmarik · 2017-12-29 18:12 · Score: 1

Liar it does claim it was cheap

The cost of electricity in Germany has decreased so dramatically in the past few days that major consumers have actually been paid to use power from the grid.

My error on MsMash but it's 6 of one half a dozen of the other.
What's your excuse for deliberately misreading that ?
Re:Really Fake News From Climate Deniers ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 18:43 · Score: 0

major consumers have actually been paid to use power
You think a negative power price isn't cheap?
What part of the article are you claiming is wrong? Or are you just applying your own generalisations to it, assuming that it means all power in Germany is cheap at all times, despite the article claiming no such thing?
Re:Really Fake News From Climate Deniers ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 22:09 · Score: 0

It's the example chosen by Crashmark.
Re:Really Fake News From Climate Deniers ? by serviscope_minor · 2017-12-30 00:11 · Score: 1

The best lies have a kernel of truth.
Pointing out that the spot price spiked negative because of a rapid glut is not the same as saying "electricity is cheap" which implies some sort of continuing condition.
Trying ot equate the two is deeply dishonest and the intent is to deceive.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Really Fake News From Climate Deniers ? by geekoid · 2017-12-30 07:04 · Score: 1

I woulds argue adhering the the SPJ Code of ethics is the line, regardless of education. Don't get me wrong, being educated at an university mean you are more likely to get better writing. I prefer the journalists I read are educated and write at the college level, but that isn't needs, IMHO.
https://www.spj.org/ethicscode...
But you are replying to a person who would happily allow the government to step on your throat if it means he 'won'. trumpanzees are idiots.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Really Fake News From Climate Deniers ? by geekoid · 2017-12-30 07:08 · Score: 1

Since those negative price spike keep getting a little longer and a little more often, I think a comparison can be made.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

How about we call out by rsilvergun · 2017-12-29 11:24 · Score: 0

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/

Re:How about we call out by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 14:48 · Score: 0

The Koch brothers just spent $20 million..
So what?
Soros spends billions annually promotong and funding Leftist causes. He wants chaos in the US. The US is Soros' next nation in his crosshairs to collapse after the five previous nations he caused to collapse.
Soros is a REAL NAZI, FFS!
And he's the Left's BFF.
All you SJWs on the Left screaming Nazi Nazi REEE REEE! better realize that your favorite Leftist groups and organizations are funded by a fucking real, actual, documented, Holocaust-enforcing Nazi. Tides Foundation and all the groups they support. All Soros Nazi money.
If you're looking for the Nazis, little Snowflake, turn around. They're behind you holding your group's/movement's/org's purse strings as you do the Nazi's dirty work.
Re:How about we call out by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2017-12-29 20:37 · Score: 1

Soros is a REAL NAZI, FFS!
And he's the Left's BFF.
All you SJWs on the Left screaming Nazi Nazi REEE REEE! better realize that your favorite Leftist groups and organizations are funded by a fucking real, actual, documented, Holocaust-enforcing Nazi.
You do know that Soros is Jewish, that he and his family had to pretend to be Christians to keep from getting shipped off to the camps by actual Nazis, and that he was 15 years old when the war ended, don't you?
Of course you do.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:How about we call out by riverat1 · 2017-12-30 06:32 · Score: 1

Soros spends billions annually promotong and funding Leftist causes. He wants chaos in the US. The US is Soros' next nation in his crosshairs to collapse after the five previous nations he caused to collapse.
How come no one ever mentions the actual national governments he helped cause the collapse of? Could it be because it doesn't fit your narrative? Just for the record the governments Soros helped end include the communist government of Poland, the communist government of Czechoslovakia, the communist government of Hungary and a couple of other eastern European communist governments I have a hard time remembering. So do you think helping cause those governments to collapse was a bad thing?
Re:How about we call out by Bartles · 2017-12-30 08:44 · Score: 1

Yep. And he worked for the national socialists, confiscating the property of Jews who refused to submit and enjoyed it.

Are you a denier by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:27 · Score: 0

if you don't care?

Re:Are you a denier by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 12:24 · Score: 0

No. If you don't care, you're not a denier, you're a cancer.
Re:Are you a denier by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 07:37 · Score: 0

Can I be brain cancer? That is my favorite.

I'm just gonna post this once by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:30 · Score: 0

Eat shit, boomers

"Leftist" sites see 30-70% fewer Google referrals by Btrot69 · 2017-12-29 11:33 · Score: 1

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...

Failing NY Times is on its last legs by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:38 · Score: 1

The financial statements do not lie, unlike the Times editorial staff.

Re:"Leftist" sites see 30-70% fewer Google referra by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 11:51 · Score: 0

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.

All the SJW will correct this by AHuxley · 2017-12-29 12:27 · Score: 0

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"

Naahhh... by VeryFluffyBunny · 2017-12-29 12:31 · Score: 2

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.

Re:Naahhh... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 07:53 · Score: 0

Some good people choose to remain anonymous (or so believe to be) to achieve more Freedom of expression; of course, there are bad people hiding there, too.
A common mistake, though, is believing registered people are all nice or will refrain from posting obnoxious things.
Evil people will, first of all, register to create a favorable bias towards them or even to do evil things unimpeded -- and yet getting some free karma in the process.
Re:Naahhh... by thinkwaitfast · 2017-12-30 09:33 · Score: 1

The only time I'm ever logged into gmail and watching videos is when I start up moon landing/flat earth/hollow earth/contrail videos. I don't watch them, I just like to mess with whatever google is tracking me for :)
Re:Naahhh... by VeryFluffyBunny · 2017-12-30 11:54 · Score: 1

So what do you get if you search for climate change in Google?

--
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.

America is the biggest polluter by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 13:46 · Score: 0

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.

Re:America is the biggest polluter by Alypius · 2017-12-29 14:21 · Score: 2

Oh of course we're not, quit lying. We're ranked a distant second to China who puts out twice our output for CO2. If you're also asking about air quality and pollution, we're the eighth best. (IEA is my source, but I don't have a link handy, sorry)
Re: America is the biggest polluter by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 16:31 · Score: -1

CO2 isn't a pollutant sunshine. Best get your facts right. America has done a lot to clean up it's act, often leading the way.
Venus has 96% CO2 atmosphere, yet it's colder than earth at elevation at its poles. Probably something to do with energy from the aurora, solar wind and earth's magnetic field.
If I do the calcs on Venus' troposphere I get 38 degrees C at the altitude equal to earth's atmospheric pressure at its equator. Venus is closer to the sun. The high temperatures on the surface of venus are due to it's incredibly dense atmosphere which built up because venus lacks the processes that sequester CO2.
Earth's atmosphere only contains 0.038% CO2.
It's our destiny to increase this important nutrient in earth's atmosphere. Below 0.02 % atmospheric CO2 plants stop photosynthesis, below 0.01%, surface life will become extinct.
Re:America is the biggest polluter by BasilBrush · 2017-12-29 19:40 · Score: 1

And a population more than 4 times the size. You have to account for population size, so you should be using figures per capita. And there's no denying that Americans are the most polluting people on earth.
Re:America is the biggest polluter by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 20:51 · Score: 0

Yes China puts out twice the CO2 with over 4x the population. Therefore Americans are over twice as polluting as China and 5x the world average.
Care to try again, or are you just an American apologist with his head up his arse?
Re: America is the biggest polluter by Eunuchswear · 2017-12-29 21:58 · Score: 1

Venus has 96% CO2 atmosphere, yet it's colder than earth at elevation at its poles. Probably something to do with energy from the aurora, solar wind and earth's magnetic field.
Is this the most moronic irrelevant factoid factoid ever posted to slashdot?

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Re: America is the biggest polluter by Bartles · 2017-12-30 07:16 · Score: 1

No, not at all. It's become a recent trend for the true believers to use Venus as an example for what the earth will become if we don't give more power to global government and tax the rich.
Re:America is the biggest polluter by Bartles · 2017-12-30 07:17 · Score: 1

But we produce more than China. Population is irrelevant. We produce far less co2 per unit of production than China or most other nations.
Re: America is the biggest polluter by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 23:44 · Score: 0

The GDP of the EU is much the same as the USA, but CO2 production lower, so your assertion is incorrect.
Re:America is the biggest polluter by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-31 04:49 · Score: 0

Then why do you have a massive trade imbalance with China?
Making polluting shit, isn't absolving you from making CO2. It's one of the fucking reasons you dickhead. You make and then waste much much more than everyone else. Then blame them for their CO2 instead of yourselves, because you feel somehow entitled.
Re:America is the biggest polluter by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-01 03:04 · Score: 0

How are you measuring unit of production? Please tell me it's GDP. I need a good laugh.

Proven? by mi · 2017-12-29 14:18 · Score: -1, Troll

Global warming was proven, you ignorant toad.

"Proven"? Talk about false or misleading claims! Not only has it not been proven, its adherents admit that their theories are unfalsifiable — which means, the entire "climate science" is not, actually, science .

Indeed, we are asked to treat the supposed threat as Blaise Pascal proposed to treat the existence of God.

You, ignorant toad, may believe it, but it certainly has not been proven...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.

Re:Proven? by KeensMustard · 2017-12-29 19:44 · Score: 4, Funny

Yes, it's all a vast chinese time travelling zombie conspiracy to take American jobs. There's an easily repeatable test that CO2 behaves exactly as described by Arrhenius, Fourier et, al, but the results are always faked. How? Chinese conspirators travel through time detecting instances where the experiment falsifies the observation of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and give the experimenters vaccines with mercury. Then the experimenters and their audiences are vulnerable to hypnotic suggestions, so that they think they saw direct evidence to the contrary. They've done this thousands of times.
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.
Re:Proven? by riverat1 · 2017-12-29 22:38 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Proven? by serviscope_minor · 2017-12-30 00:26 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Proven? by mi · 2017-12-30 05:05 · Score: 1, Insightful

Of course climate science is falsifiable.
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).

It's those subtheories that you really need to falsify.
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.
Re:Proven? by riverat1 · 2017-12-30 07:24 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Proven? by philmarcracken · 2017-12-30 11:16 · Score: 1

I'd watch that movie to be honest.

Because by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-12-29 14:19 · Score: 1

Politics trumps science

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.

editor msmash by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 14:23 · Score: 0

All the left wing apple hating nonsense you crave from the worst Slashdot editor ever.

4Che by harvey+the+nerd · 2017-12-29 14:24 · Score: 1

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.

Re:4Che by Alypius · 2017-12-29 14:32 · Score: 1

I'm not a revolver guy, but damn that finish is nice!
Re:4Che by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 15:15 · Score: 0

I should have learned by now that arguing with inbred fucktards was pointless.
It's like wresting with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

Re: I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 14:27 · Score: 0

> If you think this article is a politics article

He said "political". Perhaps you need to stay in school.

Dissent is Not Tolerated by Alypius · 2017-12-29 14:30 · Score: 0

Considering that communism is the most successful totalitarian system for murdering dissidents I would think it fits quite well.

Re:Dissent is Not Tolerated by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 15:42 · Score: 0

So is this how you see climate-change deniers, as "dissidents" ? Is that how you see yourself ? A noble, brave, wrongfully oppressed "freedom fighter" ?
Climate-change denialism is not "healthy skepticism", It is a deliberate, organized, concerted campain of disinformation, gas-lighting, and character-assassination of the scientific community as a whole, orchestrated by the oil and gas industries, and other industries who profit from oil and gas, to protect their bottom-line at all cost.
It is a WAR on science. Nothing less. Climate-change deniers are not simply dissidents, they are ENNEMIES.
Fortunately, apart for god-forsaken shitholes like what the U.S. has become, science and reality are winning. Someday you will be old and near the end of your life. By then, I truly wish you will still have 20/20 vision, so when you look into the eyes of your children and grandchildren, instead of love and affection, you will see disdain, when they look down on you with disgust thinking about the world that you tried to leave them. And I wish you take that vision with you when you burn in hell for eternity.
Re:Dissent is Not Tolerated by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 16:12 · Score: 0

A wee bit paranoid there, bub? So you envision "conspiracies" of "organized campaigns" plotting against you?
Umm K.
Better put some ice on that before you get too carried away with all your "theories" and "plots". You might have to apply for a job someday and you wouldn't want your paranoia to surface during a background check.
Re:Dissent is Not Tolerated by drinkypoo · 2017-12-29 16:22 · Score: 1

A wee bit paranoid there, bub? So you envision "conspiracies" of "organized campaigns" plotting against you?
Any time two or more people get together to screw over a third (or more) it is called a conspiracy. When multiple major interests cooperate to create a condition in which they collectively control a market to achieve a common goal of maximizing profit, it is called a cartel. Big Oil is the classic example of cartel economics.
Throughout history, one industry after another has spent money to deliberately deceive both lawmakers and the public as to the hazards involved in their products. Sugar, tobacco, and oil are the canonical examples. Oil companies in particular actually have known that burning fossil fuels contributed to global warming for sure since the 1970s, because the research they paid for told them so back then. The science was fairly secure back in the 1800s, but it has been solid to everyone in a position to know since the seventies.
Corporations buy legislation which is not in the public interest. They write bills and hand them to congresscritters whose campaigns they fund, to be converted into law. This is a matter of fact and public record. It's a criminal conspiracy, since the purpose is to defraud the public for economic gain. What it is not is a secret conspiracy. It's all a matter of public record. We know who the bad guys are.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Dissent is Not Tolerated by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 18:59 · Score: 0

So you envision "conspiracies" of "organized campaigns"
No need to imagine anything, they're very clearly documented.
Re:Dissent is Not Tolerated by Alypius · 2017-12-31 11:29 · Score: 1

Good Lord, man, go find a college student and buy some weed. You sound like a bloody inquisitor.

SEO gamers are useless by mea2214 · 2017-12-29 14:56 · Score: 1

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.

Re:SEO gamers are useless by drinkypoo · 2017-12-29 16:11 · Score: 1

Decided to go old school and use the yellow pages (the big paper book with yellow pages) instead and it was far more informative.
Yes, you have to do that because yp.com has a bunch of "serves your area" bullshit hits from miles and miles away.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:SEO gamers are useless by geekoid · 2017-12-30 07:13 · Score: 1

Maybe you just aren't good at using google?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Climate Change is Real, the Cause is Unknown by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 14:58 · Score: -1

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.

Re: Climate Change is Real, the Cause is Unknown by JoeRobe · 2017-12-30 04:21 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Climate Change is Real, the Cause is Unknown by riverat1 · 2017-12-30 06:38 · Score: 1

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.

Just click “I feel lucky” on Google. by Picodon · 2017-12-29 15:03 · Score: 2

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.

"Scientists blast climate alarm," by fustakrakich · 2017-12-29 15:29 · Score: 1

Yes, when you "blast" something, you win. I thought everybody knew that.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re: I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 15:37 · Score: 0

PopeRatzo hates everyone who isn't a rich, land-owning, smugly self-satisfied Democrat party member.

Re: I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot by Reverend+Green · 2017-12-29 15:38 · Score: 2

Nice dogmatism, broham!

...because climate change isn't real by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 15:43 · Score: 0

It's a made up religion and you're the Jehovah's Witness equivalent.

hmm by cascadingstylesheet · 2017-12-29 15:58 · Score: 1

People are daring to say unapproved things. Others are daring to let that text be found! This must be stopped.

Re: I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 16:23 · Score: -1

Slashdot has been taken over by the leftwing media. Since Trump had been elected there are more global warming posts and anti trump rags. Slashdot is pretty much done for me until they get some more real news for nerds stories. Remember digg? Probably not.

Record low temperatures... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 17:33 · Score: 0

Surely a sign of global warming. (lol)

Can't belive /. believes in this HOAX by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 21:50 · Score: -1

Leftist Caused Climate Hysteria is a HOAX to Control and Steal from YOU! There is Climate Change. Humans have NOTHING to do with it. And the people here on /. should stick to computers and programming as it looks like this bunch is not capable of understanding the "science" of these evil people is based on computer models. Models that have never been right. IT IS a Religion of the Communists to bring down capitalism that is all it has ever been. Quit giving the idiots that push this nonsense a forum on here as the NYT is not a paper but a Democrat controlled rag of talking points. Slash.dot can do better.

There is no such thing as a climate change denier by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 22:08 · Score: -1

Those who are skeptical are scientific and understand the great amount of data we don't take into climate science as well as the fact that if there is a 90% chance AGW is true that means there is still a 10% chance it is not, and thousands of grey zones in the middle that we don't fully understand. Every time someone uses the term denier what they are inherently doing is denying the scientific method and rational thought while at the same time using name calling and vitriol in a snooty attempt to prove they are correct.

I only mention this because every time someone uses the term denier I and many others cringe and immediately label you are a hot head narcissistic non science minded freak of nature and move on to read something else. If you want to be heard quit throwing around this unscientific labeling of people who may actually understand climate a lot better than you do, or who may actually find what you say interesting up until the name calling hate speech throws them and they label you a brainwashed retard.

Just saying,
Cheers,
Anonymous Coward

It's actual mislabeling... by BlueCoder · 2017-12-29 22:09 · Score: 0

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.

Re:It's actual mislabeling... by fred6666 · 2017-12-30 02:38 · Score: 1

Yes man has affected the atmosphere.... but how significant is it really?
The answer to that question has been known for years. The answer is "significant". You are not being skeptical if you are still asking the same question over and over again when it has long been answered. You are being a denier.
Re:It's actual mislabeling... by riverat1 · 2017-12-30 06:47 · Score: 1

The volcano argument again! While it wasn't a supervolcano the largest eruption of the past 100 years, Mount Pinatubo in 1991 emitted about 42 million tonnes of CO2 compared to human emissions of 23 billion tonnes in 1991. So Mount Pinatubo was 0.2% of human emissions that year. If volcanoes are so influential why don't we see spikes in CO2 levels around major eruptions?
Re:It's actual mislabeling... by geekoid · 2017-12-30 07:18 · Score: 1

YOu're not a skeptic, you are a denier becasue all the data is out there, the experts publish. You just ignore it.
We know how much CO2 we release, and how it holds energy.
We know we produce more green house gasses then can be reabsorbed, by a long shot.
We know how much, that is pretty solid.
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?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:It's actual mislabeling... by Bartles · 2017-12-30 09:11 · Score: 1

The priesthood has spoken. The answer to all your questions is "significant". Believe or be forsaken. Sacrifice and repent!
Re:It's actual mislabeling... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-31 03:45 · Score: 0

Funny, you accuse OP of omitting facts and provide none of your own. Creating a list of tests and saying they've been done without linking to any peer reviewed evidence is what we've been getting for years. I have seen research pointing the impact volcanoes and cow farts but nothing from the global warming crowd to back up their claims of humans being the cause. I do not deny climate change and if you show me evidence (You know that stuff science is based on) of humanities overall impact I will gladly capitulate. Until then sod off.
Re: It's actual mislabeling... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-01 01:11 · Score: 0

There are journals full of evidence. Why not read some papers?

Always been climate changes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 23:44 · Score: 0

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.

Re:Always been climate changes by riverat1 · 2017-12-30 06:49 · Score: 1

Climate doesn't change for magical reasons but rather for actual physical reasons. That is exactly what climate scientists are studying, the physical processes that make up our climate.

Why not both? by Immerial · 2017-12-30 00:49 · Score: 1

My money is on both. [Insert "Why not both?" meme here]

Belief? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 01:04 · Score: 0

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.

Religion by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 01:56 · Score: 0

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?

Do stop lying, please by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 02:12 · Score: 0

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.

Re:Do stop lying, please by riverat1 · 2017-12-30 05:19 · Score: 1

Ok, we know about the PETM. Now you show how a period where the rate of increase in atmospheric carbon was less than 1/10th of the current rate is applicable to today's situation.

A President that truly is unable by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 02:13 · Score: 0

To grasp the difference between climate and weather. Let that sink in.

Not proven, not provable by mi · 2017-12-30 02:44 · Score: 1

You put in a link that made it looked like you had a citation for how they admit that

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:

1. Methods aren’t always necessarily falsifiable
Falsifiability is the idea that an assertion can be shown to be false by an experiment or an observation, and is critical to distinctions between “true science” and “pseudoscience”.
Climate models are important and complex tools for understanding the climate system. Are climate models falsifiable? Are they science? A test of falsifiability requires a model test or climate observation that shows global warming caused by increased human-produced greenhouse gases is untrue. It is difficult to propose a test of climate models in advance that is falsifiable. [emphasis mine]

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.

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

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.

Re:Not proven, not provable by serviscope_minor · 2017-12-30 02:55 · Score: 1

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.
Just because you don't understand the difference between science and religion does not make that true.
The IPCC made falsifiable predictions based on scientific models and data.
The predictions came true.
And yet you claim the field is not falsifiable by dismissing both the falsifiability and evidence as "babble".
Being contrarian doesn't make you clever.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Not proven, not provable by mi · 2017-12-30 04:51 · Score: 1

The IPCC made falsifiable predictions based on scientific models and data.
The predictions came true.
You aren't citing any — which is especially curious because you blasted me for not providing accurate citations before... And, of course, even if some such predictions did come true, it is not proof. Unless this guy's predictions make him a scientist too. California did get the punishment, you know, a rather obvious one, which is much more than one can say about IPCC's results.

And yet you claim the field is not falsifiable
Actually, this time around I didn't have to make such a claim of my own. I simply cited claims made by others. You have nothing to say about that, you keep coming back with "IPCC" and personal insults. I think, I'm done here.

Being contrarian doesn't make you clever.
It being warm does not prove the need to ban incandescent light bulbs either.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:Not proven, not provable by serviscope_minor · 2017-12-30 05:36 · Score: 1

You aren't citing any
Yes, I cited the IPCC report. The one that made predictions which are in the middle of being tested now.
No I didn't provide a link. I figured anyone debating climate change would have the very basics in place. I find it astonishing that you believe you're informed on the topic and are unaware of the first IPCC report!
That's incredible!
Here you go:
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
And, of course, even if some such predictions did come true, it is not proof.
Duck and weave duck and weave. We both know I made no such claim so we both now know you are an exceptinally dishonest person. You claimed the science was not falsifiable. the IPCC report made testable predictions which is pretty much the definition of falsifiable.
And the predictions came true.
Actually, this time around I didn't have to make such a claim of my own. I simply cited claims made by others.
Yes, that's you making a claim and backing it up with citations. Either that or you were osting irrelevant links to the thread for the purpose of making nothing but pointless noise.
Since you say you are making no claim we can infer that your were being utterly pointelss. thankyou for this time being honest enough to admit to it!
It being warm does not prove the need to ban incandescent light bulbs either.
I must be winning: I point out that you're being stupid and the best you can manage is point out to me what someone else did!
I think, I'm done here.
No, my man, a denialists work is never done.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Not proven, not provable by geekoid · 2017-12-30 06:51 · Score: 1

The data it's based in is, in fact, falsifiable.
OMG, you link to crappy news site. That's all you got?
Here is 5 falsifiable facts about global warming.:
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?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Not proven, not provable by tbannist · 2018-01-02 04:58 · Score: 1

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 [dailykos.com] article admits to treating the question of Global Warming's existence as that of a deity. And Huffington Post [huffingtonpost.com] concurs. (Hilariously, this entire approach was predicted by a satirist years earlier [thepeoplescube.com]).
Talk about lying out of your ass. She wrote "It is difficult to propose a test of climate models in advance that is falsifiable" and you change that into "It is impossible to falsify any climate science". Child, that is what we call a strawman argument. You changed what someone you disagree with said, to make it easier for you to "win". Climate models are not equivalent to all climate science, and the difficulty with determining a falsifiable test before the model has been built does not mean the model can not be falsified after it has been created.

Interesting that you have to resort to a deceptive style of arguing: ignoring the inconvenient arguments completely, while pouncing on technicalities.
Yes it is very interesting that you do exactly that, while claiming others are doing it to you.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical

Normal? by jon3k · 2017-12-30 02:44 · Score: 1

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?

It's the flat-earth deniers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 02:45 · Score: 0

Deny deny deny

More cries for a ministry of truth... by Karmashock · 2017-12-30 04:13 · Score: 1

... 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.

Yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 05:07 · Score: 0

We badly need Licensed Speech. Free Speech is evil. Brought to you by Cultural Marxists International Inc, with kind support from Banksters International.

FALSE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 05:28 · Score: 0

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

Re:FALSE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 05:35 · Score: 0

https://www.eex-transparency.com/startseite/strom/oesterreich/produktion/nutzung/produktion-aus-solar-windenergie/produktion-aus-solar-windenergie-grafik
Re:FALSE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 05:42 · Score: 0

A better source is probably
https://www.energy-charts.de/power_de.htm
Re:FALSE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 05:51 · Score: 0

and https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/daten-zu-erneuerbaren-energien/Stromerzeugung_2017_Halbjahr_1.pdf

The subject says it all by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 05:55 · Score: 0

>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.

"Nuclear" BS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 05:56 · Score: 0

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.

Re:"Nuclear" BS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 08:36 · Score: 0

Your comment does two things: It shows that you draw the wrong conclusions from widely known facts, and that you can't write even a short comment without including an insult --- in a discussion about the ways people manipulate the public.

No, not false by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 06:12 · Score: 0

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.

Yes, Proven. by geekoid · 2017-12-30 06:47 · Score: 1

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 /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:Yes, Proven. by Shogun37 · 2017-12-30 08:04 · Score: 0

Replace "humans" with "volcanic eruptions" and you would be just as correct.
Re:Yes, Proven. by riverat1 · 2017-12-30 09:00 · Score: 1

Not even close. Volcanic emissions each year are only around 1% of human emissions.

Re:"Leftist" sites see 30-70% fewer Google referra by geekoid · 2017-12-30 07:10 · Score: 1

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 /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Climate change is a HOAX... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 08:49 · Score: 0

"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.

Re: I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot by c6gunner · 2017-12-30 09:56 · Score: 1

Yes, but THEY are suppressing it. You know how it is.

Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 10:17 · Score: 0

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 ;)

what point? that you're a denier not a skeptic? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-03 03:14 · Score: 0

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.

Which side is the priesthood really though? by crimson+tsunami · 2018-01-03 03:32 · Score: 1

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.

Slashdot Mirror

How Climate Change Deniers Rise To the Top in Google Searches (nytimes.com)

359 comments