Slashdot Mirror
How Climate Change Deniers Rise To the Top in Google Searches (nytimes.com)
If you searched for the words "climate change" into Google, until earlier this week, you could have gotten an unexpected result: ads that call global warming a hoax. "Scientists blast climate alarm," said one that appeared at the top of the search results page during a recent search, pointing to a website, DefyCCC, that asserted: "Nothing has been studied better and found more harmless than anthropogenic CO2 release." Another ad proclaimed: "The Global Warming Hoax -- Why the Science Isn't Settled," linking to a video containing unsupported assertions, including that there is no correlation between rising levels of greenhouse gases and higher global temperatures. These references were first reported by The New York Times (the link may be paywalled). From a report: America's technology giants have come under fire for their role in the spread of fake news during the 2016 presidential campaign, prompting promises from Google and others to crack down on sites that spread disinformation. Less scrutinized has been the way tech companies continue to provide a mass platform for the most extreme sites among those that use false or misleading science to reject the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. Google's search page has become an especially contentious battleground between those who seek to educate the public on the established climate science and those who reject it. Not everyone who uses Google will see climate denial ads in their search results. Google's algorithms use search history and other data to tailor ads to the individual, something that is helping to create a highly partisan internet. A recent search for "climate change" or "global warming" from a Google account linked to a New York Times climate reporter did not return any denial ads. The top results were ads from environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund. But when the same reporter searched for those terms using private browsing mode, which helps mask identity information from Google's algorithms, the ad for DefyCCC popped up.
[...] The climate denialist ads are an example of how contrarian groups can use the internet's largest automated advertising systems to their advantage, gaming the system to find a mass platform for false or misleading claims.
[...] The climate denialist ads are an example of how contrarian groups can use the internet's largest automated advertising systems to their advantage, gaming the system to find a mass platform for false or misleading claims.
""He who controls the medium controls the message. He who controls the message controls the masses."
The NY Times hates competition.
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.
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.
In addition to already being an advertisement platform to sheep, this and more shocking news at 11.
Then you're extremely short-sighted and frankly bad for the species.
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.
The AGW zealots posted this right when everyone else is too busy shoveling global warming out of their driveways.
Have gnu, will travel.
Bring back kuro5hin.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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.
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...
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.
The financial statements do not lie, unlike the Times editorial staff.
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
Now and then during those 800,000 years (and more) the earth's climate has changed rapidly due to anomalous events. The Industrial Revolution is one of them.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
If you think this article is a politics article rather than a science article, you might be looking for a place like Free Republic, or InfoWars.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
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."
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.
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."
An awful lot of religion in these replies.
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.
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."
Colombians.
... or more likely, freeze.
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.
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)
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.
You know how they figured out the warming and cooling for those ice cores, idiot?
Thermodynamics. A planet doesn't warm and cool without reason. Along with the cyclical Milankovich cycles, anomalous events recorded in the cores correlate strongly with atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Which makes sense if had a clue about physics. In physics there's a concept called the mean free path. It's why the ozone layer that makes up a tiny fraction of our atmosphere is capable of preventing our planet from being a sterilized ball of rock. That same concept also explains why trace gases can have noticeable affects on our planet, such as those greenhouse gases that prevent our planet from becoming a snowball.
Chemistry. Physics. Thermodynamics. The atmosphere adheres to them just like everything else. There are no special set of rules that say conservation of energy is never violated EXCEPT when it comes to climate.
BTW, you can download and examine the model source code. They're built on the same physics and chemistry you use every single day without it ever even crossing your tiny little mind.
Educate yourself so the next time you don't sound like a blathering moron.
~X~
Last year I had to research local HVAC providers. Google was useless. There wasn't a single local result and every one looked like they SEOed the crap out of their site to rise to the top. Decided to go old school and use the yellow pages (the big paper book with yellow pages) instead and it was far more informative.
You should ask your favourite editor at Breitbart or Russia Today to start a Tech news section.
And please stay there. Your crocodile tears over how [insert name of news site here] has become so utterly useless and lame and how, oh it’s so unfortunate, but everybody should stop reading it unless it ceases and desists from publishing anything critical of [insert name of party or politician] and be so unfairly biased against [insert name of loony conspiracy theory here]... are not welcome in discussion about news topics. Host your own blog and invite your fellow trolls to compete for the most disruptive comment over there.
Or write to the editors of the site so they can have a good laugh, instead of bothering its readers.
Yes, when you "blast" something, you win. I thought everybody knew that.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Wow, you really come off as a petulant dunce.
Nice dogmatism, broham!
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.
People are daring to say unapproved things. Others are daring to let that text be found! This must be stopped.
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.'"
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.'"
Obligatory XKCD, although it only goes back 22k years:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Perhaps the GP can post some data from earlier where there is a sudden spike like we saw in the last century.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Alright, link me to your 800,000 years of evidence.
As for the what-if models, they worked out pretty well when the predicted, in the 1970s, the reversal of a global cooling trend that had been going on since 1940. That's pretty damn good confirmation.
Calling a model "what if" makes it sounds dodgy, but any prediction of the future is "what if" -- even if that prediction is that there will be no change. Predicting that the atmosphere will warm because of some other reason is also relying on a "what if" model.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Real science doesn't label critics as “deniers”. Politics in the name of science does that.
I have 800,000 years of direct, measurable evidence that the earth's climate cycles between warming and cooling, and that we are, in fact, in the fifth such cycle.
Ah, a new theory. Here's a basic sniff test: In all the cycles over the past 800 000 years, what caused the climate to change?
And what is causing it to change this time?
You, on the other hand, have what-if models that account only for unending warming, something which hasn't happened in 800,000 years.
The only models I've seen suggesting an unending warming cycle are those used by denialists. Which is to say, if you can't adequately explain the current warming, then you cannot rule out a never ending warming cycle. So: what is causing the current warming event?
And 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Are you trolling or really just this stupid?
I have 800,000 years of direct, measurable evidence that the earth's climate cycles between warming and cooling, and that we are, in fact, in the fifth such cycle.
Exactly. And we are currently in the cooling part of the cycle,
But the temperature is going up.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Real critics of scientific theory don't deny reality and lie. Deniers do.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Concern troll is concerned.
Centre-left my arse.
I am tempted to abandon Slashdot, as the signal to noise ratio of 'actually interesting' articles is very low
Welcome to the first decade of the 21st century, where have you been been?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
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
But it doesn't change for magical reasons. There are physical processes behind those changes. That is exactly what climate scientists study.
I don't know about you, but I think it's better to go with the 800,000-year-old patterns that I can directly observe in ice core samples, rather than your wonky spreadsheets. And if you want to make an extraordinary claim that 800,000 years of climate cycles are suddenly coming to an end, brother, you'd better have a whale of a lot of extraordinary hard EVIDENCE. Not spreadsheets.
Of course those 800,000 years of ice age cycles have never seen an atmospheric CO2 level of 405 ppm. That might make a difference.
Of course climate science is falsifiable. But maybe not on a time scale you're comfortable with. Yet climate models continue to predict pretty much what has been happening even if they're not as precise as you'd like them to be.
The other thing to keep in mind is that climate science is composed of thousands of different theories brought together to form a more complete overall picture. It's those subtheories that you really need to falsify.
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.
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.
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.
Real science doesn't label critics as "deniers".
No, but it does label non critical denialists as deniers.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Oh spot the deceptive little man here!
"Proven"? Talk about false or misleading claims! Not only has it not been proven, its adherents admit that their theories are unfalsifiable
Very clever! You put in a link that made it looked like you had a citation for how they admit that but all you did was link to "falsifiability". Very nice, and it's interesting that you have to resort to a deceptive style of arguing.
If for example the IPCC's pridictions of what was to happen in the future did not come to pass, that would be some falsifying evidence. However, when the future did arrive, it turned out that it fell within the confidence intervals of the IPCC's future predictions.
By the way, being needlessly contrarian does not make you smart.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
My money is on both. [Insert "Why not both?" meme here]
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?
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.
It is quite obvious, I simply screwed up the link. This is, what I meant to include, separately from the link explaining, what falsifiability is, and why it is a requirement for real science:
And she is not alone in admitting, there is no — and there can not be — any proof. Interestingly, you chose to completely ignore the other link, which I did cite correctly, where a a DailyKos article admits to treating the question of Global Warming's existence as that of a deity. And Huffington Post concurs. (Hilariously, this entire approach was predicted by a satirist years earlier).
Interesting that you have to resort to a deceptive style of arguing: ignoring the inconvenient arguments completely, while pouncing on technicalities.
Our whole argument in this thread is that, by the purported scientists' own admission — now properly cited — their very discipline is not falsifiable. Your babbling about IPCC is not much different from the Bible-thumpers' predictions about His wrath.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Let me start by saying I'm not at all a climate change denier, I believe in man made global warming, because that's what the scientists tell me and who am I to argue.
With that said, isn't this how Google's PageRank algorithm (or its successor) works? A sites popularity is determined by the amount of sites linking to it. Unfortunately, I think there's just a lot of people who are climate change deniers who link to these sources.
Isn't this the obvious, simple answer?
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."
... Orwell called it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
That's a really interesting point that the climate science community has discuss thoroughly over the past 30 years and understands. If you're interested in understanding why this lag has happened in the past, check out this:
https://skepticalscience.com/c...
That short story is that yes, CO2 has lagged behind temperature over the past several hundred thousand years because CO2 hasn't driven those temperature changes - those changes happened due to orbital variations. In fact, during those periods CO2 was released from the oceans due to the warming (hence the lag), and that release *amplified* the warming as a result.
So that very same historical record that you refer to provides evidence that releasing CO2 into the atmosphere can increase temperatures.
The fact that historical changes in temperature have not been initiated by CO2 increases does not speak to whether our current unprecedented rise in CO2 will initiate temperature rise. The fact that historical increases in CO2 have amplified temperature rises *does* speak to whether increases in CO2 cause temperature rises (they do).
The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
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.
Is it? Not according to this climate-scientist from Australia, nor according to this professor concurring with this blogger (both of them hilariously repeating in earnest this earlier satire).
No, I don't. As I explained to you before, the burden of proof is not on me, but on those, who want to compel me — on pain of higher taxes, loss of freedoms, and even actual criminal prosecutions — to change my way of life.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
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.
We could only hope they are coming to an end, because we are past due for another minimum.
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.
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.
There's nothing unscientific about calling someone a denier. Or a conspiracy theorist, my preferred term.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I doubt it. The sun is a G-type main sequence star. It's normal evolution means that it gets hotter and larger as it ages although at the current stage it is a very slow process.
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?
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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.
But we produce more than China. Population is irrelevant. We produce far less co2 per unit of production than China or most other nations.
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
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.
How many people did "experts" lobotomize in the 20th century?
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
Yep. And he worked for the national socialists, confiscating the property of Jews who refused to submit and enjoyed it.
Do you have published, peer reviewed research that supports that?
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
The priesthood has spoken. The answer to all your questions is "significant". Believe or be forsaken. Sacrifice and repent!
Yes, but THEY are suppressing it. You know how it is.
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.
How about just some plain old liberalism?
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
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.
I'd watch that movie to be honest.
That's some nice fundamentalist religious zealotry you've got there, bromeister.
Ad hominem. Do better.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Good Lord, man, go find a college student and buy some weed. You sound like a bloody inquisitor.
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.
Actually, rational evaluation of the actions of the "critics" is what labels them as "deniers". If you aren't interested in the truth or the facts, but only in advancing a political position that denies the existence of facts and knowledge, what else should we call you?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
No, science doesn't even do that.
Science: This is what it looks like is going to happen (prediction) Politics: You must change your behavior.
So...
Science: If you deny reality, make up arguments, pretend to be care but refuse to ever justify your own position with any evidence, you will be labeled a denier?
Politics: Nu-uh, because Fake News! Chinese Conspiracy! Climategate!
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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
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.
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.
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.
Well, you're definitely a fool, we agree on that...
Whereas you are simply a liar.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Says the shill.