So did global warming cause last month's lack of wildfires or not? Either global warming influences current conditions or it doesn't. Which is it? Why are you trying to argue global warming causes fires when there are fires, but it doesn't cause the lack of fires when there are no fires?
You know why there were no wildfires last month? Because it wasn't hot and windy last month and no one set any fires. This month, there were a few days of hot windy weather and probably an arson. Global warming is innocent. Because weather is not climate. Arson is not climate either.
They take a scientific claim that the frequency and intensity of a phenomenon will increase, decade, over decade, and try to argue against it based on what the weather did last month, or that one time last year. And they make it look like the scientists are talking specifically about the specific fire last month, when they just made a statistical claim about long term averages.
So don't exploit specific current events to promote your "scientific claims". Then, when you're not saying fires "like the ones scorching Southern California" this week are caused by global warming, you won't have to deal with the fact that these particular fires were not caused by global warming. If you want to be understood as a statistician, don't talk like a used car salesman.
Gore says 5 years. He holds up five fingers. It was more than 5 years ago. He didn't say "between 2011 and 2016". Maybe his source material said that, but that didn't stop him from making the 5 year prediction.
If you guys want to stop getting called out for making exaggerated predictions that turn out to be false, then stop exaggerating. Act like scientists, not salesmen.
The point is that the claim of consensus is meaningless. And even if you did want to assign value to consensus, the nasty exclusionary tactics directly undermine that value.
NPR apparently cared at the time, along with just about every other traditional media outlet. And the people who saw his movie. And the people who invited him to speak to congress. He was the #1 spokesman for global warming just a few years ago. Did you forget?
Step 1: Systematically ostracize, shun, bully, and threaten people who disagree with you. Step 2: Make sure contrary views are never published. Step 3: When people decide to be quiet instead of getting bullied, claim consensus.
They'll decide that they know how we should all live our lives. Then they'll lobby government to force us to live that way. Futurists and tech "geniuses" are neither wise nor humble.
It is entirely possible that Sandy was as bad as it was because of global warming (the increased sea level almost certainly increased the damage done), although it's impossible to pin any specific phenomenon on global warming.
Poor people should be made poorer to prevent rich beachfront property owners from having to file a big insurance claim instead of a small one?
Slashdot Mirror
So did global warming cause last month's lack of wildfires or not? Either global warming influences current conditions or it doesn't. Which is it? Why are you trying to argue global warming causes fires when there are fires, but it doesn't cause the lack of fires when there are no fires?
You know why there were no wildfires last month? Because it wasn't hot and windy last month and no one set any fires. This month, there were a few days of hot windy weather and probably an arson. Global warming is innocent. Because weather is not climate. Arson is not climate either.
They take a scientific claim that the frequency and intensity of a phenomenon will increase, decade, over decade, and try to argue against it based on what the weather did last month, or that one time last year. And they make it look like the scientists are talking specifically about the specific fire last month, when they just made a statistical claim about long term averages.
So don't exploit specific current events to promote your "scientific claims". Then, when you're not saying fires "like the ones scorching Southern California" this week are caused by global warming, you won't have to deal with the fact that these particular fires were not caused by global warming. If you want to be understood as a statistician, don't talk like a used car salesman.
A month lasts longer than a fire. How about we just stop pretending singular events like fires are climate?
Did global warming also cause the fact that there weren't any wildfires last month?
Here is the list.
Netflix streaming is evil?
Netflix streaming and Steam are DRM. (Just FYI to al you DRM-haters.)
Gore says 5 years. He holds up five fingers. It was more than 5 years ago. He didn't say "between 2011 and 2016". Maybe his source material said that, but that didn't stop him from making the 5 year prediction.
If you guys want to stop getting called out for making exaggerated predictions that turn out to be false, then stop exaggerating. Act like scientists, not salesmen.
Get that hat on the grill.
Nasty exclusionary tactics that don't work (every time) are still nasty and exclusionary.
Countering the alarmism is not "denying the science".
Too bad about the nasty exclusionary tactics then.
No. I was directly refuting "Nobody said the science is settled". It's not an example of anything other than that.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
The point is that the claim of consensus is meaningless. And even if you did want to assign value to consensus, the nasty exclusionary tactics directly undermine that value.
NPR apparently cared at the time, along with just about every other traditional media outlet. And the people who saw his movie. And the people who invited him to speak to congress. He was the #1 spokesman for global warming just a few years ago. Did you forget?
The science is settled
He also said the Arctic would be ice-free by now.
What do "motivations" have to do with the temperature? I thought this was supposed to be about "science".
Step 1: Systematically ostracize, shun, bully, and threaten people who disagree with you.
Step 2: Make sure contrary views are never published.
Step 3: When people decide to be quiet instead of getting bullied, claim consensus.
Very sciency.
They'll decide that they know how we should all live our lives. Then they'll lobby government to force us to live that way. Futurists and tech "geniuses" are neither wise nor humble.
If 23andme can't sell a tiny vial for you to spit into, there's no way the FDA will allow this Cue device to be sold. Unless they spend the next 5 years and a couple hundred million dollars testing it.
That's the government protecting you from knowing your vitamin-D levels or whether you're at risk for hereditary diseases.
Al Gore? Is that you?
They told me this would happen if I voted for McCain. And they were right!
Poor people don't have beachfront houses in New Jersey.
It is entirely possible that Sandy was as bad as it was because of global warming (the increased sea level almost certainly increased the damage done), although it's impossible to pin any specific phenomenon on global warming.
Poor people should be made poorer to prevent rich beachfront property owners from having to file a big insurance claim instead of a small one?