Correct. What they are shutting down are the bots and fake accounts.
People can still spout their paranoid conspiracy theories and can still troll for lulz, they just have to do so from one account linked to their own name, not 1000 accounts linked to 1000 fake names,
The first link was this one. I said "That link I posted had a reference section with eight peer-reviewed publications; did you read them?".
Here, copied cut-and-past from that link, are those references listed in the link.
References
Budyko, M.I., 1969: The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the Earth, Tellus, 21, 611-619, doi:10.1111/j.2153-3490.1969.tb00466.x.
Callendar, G.S., 1938: The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 64, 223-240, doi: 10.1002/qj.49706427503.
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.
Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345-13372, doi:10.1029/JD092iD11p13345.
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, M. Sato and R. Reynolds, 1996: Global surface air temperature in 1995: Return to pre-Pinatubo level. Geophys. Res. Lett. 23, 1665-1668.
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, J. Glascoe, and M. Sato, 1999: GISS analysis of surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 30997-31022, doi:10.1029/1999JD900835.
Hansen, J.E., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence, D. Easterling, T. Peterson, and T. Karl, 2001: A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 23947-23963, doi:10.1029/2001JD000354.
Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo, 2010: Global surface temperature change. Rev. Geophys., 48, RG4004, doi:10.1029/2010RG000345.
Mitchell, J. M., 1961: Recent secular changes of global temperature, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 95, 235-250, doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1961.tb50036.x.
You said you only read peer-reviewed papers. I told you that the link I had posted had a reference list of peer reviewed papers. So: read them.
The next four links were to the list of all publications that Goddard published in each of the last 4 years.
Yes, that's right. You wanted peer-reviewed papers, there's a list of several hundred.
The last link was to the Berkley site pointing to no papers because the link was to their home page.
You asked about climate science funded y government grants, so I posted a link to the BEST group, which is independently funded.
What you seem to be doing is coming up with any possible excuse to dismiss the science. First you dismiss science because you "only accept peer reviewed papers", but when I send links to peer reviewed papers you come up with other excuses. It's pretty clear that your only actual objective is to avoid actually learning anything about the science.
First I will state that I have not looked at the data. I caution others to make sure that they reference peer-reviewed studies before making claims.
Which is to warn people, then, to pay attention to the actual climate scientists, who are doing careful and well-documented work, and not the various bloggers who post all sorts of garbage with no review at all.
It is very difficult to hypothesis climate change since the earth continuously goes through climatic cycles.
And understanding what causes these climate changes is the actual genesis of climate science. This is what climate scientists do.
So 1 or 2 seasons of fires in California do not represent an irreversible trend. There are other factors affecting the fires in California that will be identified once a root cause forensic review has been completed.
True enough. One hot summer doesn't mean anything, nor, for that matter does one cold winter. And one or two seasons of hot dry weather in California doesn't indicate global warming either; climate is long term. So I'll agree with you on this one.
I wonder also how many of these scientists are climatologists and of the climatologists what percentage are dependant on government grants.
So, you won't read papers about climate that are written by climatologists. You are working very hard to avoid reading any data at all, I see. So, you must like the data from the Berkeley Earth project, which is independent: http://berkeleyearth.org/
well-verified models that have been vetted and analyzed
The models have consistently over-predicted temperatures.
to the contrary, the models have fit the data to well within confidence limits, and continue to do so.
(links [1][2][3][4])
False. They don't even fit the "adjusted" data very well.
This is the typical way deniers argue: I post a links to data, and the deniers simply deny. That's it, no data, no nothing.
Whatever it is, just deny it.
That's why they're called deniers. If they had any actual information, they'd be skeptics, but the deniers don't even care about actual information. Whatever it is, they'll just deny it.
It emphasizes the point that the understanding of the effects of carbon dioxide on the climate is not something new, it's been understood for over half a century.
Anonymous coward posts a claim that there's a blog post somewhere that says predictions are wrong, but can't say when or where or post a link.
I'm not sure why you bothered to respond. However, for predictions, I posted this to a different subthread:
Here's an article from Forbes about the very first Global Climate Model, Manabe and Wetherald 1967, looking back at how well their predictions from fifty years ago compared to data: https://www.forbes.com/sites/s...
And here are graphs, showing that the prediction from fifty years ago (red line) fits the data (blue line) almost exactly.
https://climategraphs.wordpres...
Later models have refined Manabe and Wetherald 1967, incorporating other effects than simply carbon dioxide and water vapor, but haven't changed the answer. Here is the Berkeley Earth page comparing climate models used in the IPCC report against data: http://berkeleyearth.org/graph...
The problem with the deniers, on the other hand, is that they don't have a prediction. They don't have an alternative model, they don't have anything.
The question is, which one is the alternative fact? Is it their's or your's?
I'd go with the scientists, the ones with massive amounts of data and observations and well-verified models that have been vetted and analyzed and compared to observations for over fifty years, as the ones likely to be correct, rather than the ones that say "I don't trust science, I'm sure they're wrong, and we don't need any actual data or analysis or alternate hypotheses."
Wow, at least the deniers finally acknowledge that it's actually real, and might be a problem. It's a start.
it will not be ham fisted attempts to force stone age living on the hoi polloi. (Notice that the elites like Al Gore never do the stone age living thing anyway. That's for you plebes.)
I don't have any idea why the deniers continue to shout over and over again that anybody who says that this is a problem are trying to "force stone-age living on the hoi polloi". I've never actually heard any climate scientists-- you know, the people who noticed that this was a problem that might need solution fifty fucking years ago-- say that, or anything like that.
Yes, I do think solutions will be technological, primarily improved energy supplies that don't produce large amounts of carbon dioxide.
Now that it's too late, we're starting to witness the results first hand, and there's no way to mitigate it without 100x the effort than it would have taken before (assuming it even CAN be mitigated...), what better time to accept that it's actually happening?
Climate change due to anthropogenic global warming is a long term problem. It does not happen overnight. It will require a long term solution. It will not be solved overnight.
How can it be taken seriously when they are constantly changing the historical temperature data to match their hypothesis?
"They" are not "changing the historical temperature data to match their hypothesis". That is a made-up alternate-fact being promulgated by the deniers.
You are referring, I assume to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies historical temperature record. The analysis of the data is exhaustively documented, including a FAQ giving an overview for popular audiences that are too bored to read the actual documentation. And the original data set, and all of previous historical analyses, are available on the web, showing that the changes in analysis technique don't alter the conclusion that the climate is warming. Here, for example, are the graphs showing the results of every different correction to the analysis, dating back to 1981.
In any case, you do know that several other groups, such at BEST, also analyze historical climate data, and come out with rates of warming that are essentially the same. So your conspiracy theory that scientists are altering their data in order to hoax the public is going to be a conspiracy of hundreds, and probably thousands, of scientists in independent groups on three different continents.
Slashdot Mirror
People are NOT getting silenced.
Correct. What they are shutting down are the bots and fake accounts.
People can still spout their paranoid conspiracy theories and can still troll for lulz, they just have to do so from one account linked to their own name, not 1000 accounts linked to 1000 fake names,
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/mollie-tibbetts-death-russia-bots-alliance-securing-democracy-trump-cohen-manafort-a8505241.html
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/spot-russian-bot-social-media/
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/spot-russian-bot-social-media/
Flash was good for its time, but its time was long ago.
Data is the plural of datum. Should we allow "datum are" also?
It sounds ok if somebody says "I have one datum." Would it sound right if somebody said "I have two data."?
kinda like "deer" is both the singular of "deer", and also the plural of "deer".
The first link was to a Goddard press conference.
The first link was this one. I said "That link I posted had a reference section with eight peer-reviewed publications; did you read them?".
Here, copied cut-and-past from that link, are those references listed in the link.
You said you only read peer-reviewed papers. I told you that the link I had posted had a reference list of peer reviewed papers. So: read them.
The next four links were to the list of all publications that Goddard published in each of the last 4 years.
Yes, that's right. You wanted peer-reviewed papers, there's a list of several hundred.
The last link was to the Berkley site pointing to no papers because the link was to their home page.
You asked about climate science funded y government grants, so I posted a link to the BEST group, which is independently funded.
What you seem to be doing is coming up with any possible excuse to dismiss the science. First you dismiss science because you "only accept peer reviewed papers", but when I send links to peer reviewed papers you come up with other excuses. It's pretty clear that your only actual objective is to avoid actually learning anything about the science.
40 years ago it was an earth wrecking ice age coming our way - and proven by science.
Except the myth that 40 years ago science was warning the world about a coming ice age is just that; a myth: http://web.archive.org/web/201...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/
http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/
First I will state that I have not looked at the data. I caution others to make sure that they reference peer-reviewed studies before making claims.
Which is to warn people, then, to pay attention to the actual climate scientists, who are doing careful and well-documented work, and not the various bloggers who post all sorts of garbage with no review at all.
It is very difficult to hypothesis climate change since the earth continuously goes through climatic cycles.
And understanding what causes these climate changes is the actual genesis of climate science. This is what climate scientists do.
So 1 or 2 seasons of fires in California do not represent an irreversible trend. There are other factors affecting the fires in California that will be identified once a root cause forensic review has been completed.
True enough. One hot summer doesn't mean anything, nor, for that matter does one cold winter. And one or two seasons of hot dry weather in California doesn't indicate global warming either; climate is long term. So I'll agree with you on this one.
As I said in a previous post, I only accept data presented in peer-reviewed papers.
Really. That link I posted had a reference section with eight peer-reviewed publications; did you read them? Did you even look at the link?
Even some NASA data has not been reviewed.
Really. Let's start with GISS: 2018: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/yea...
2017: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/yea...
2016: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/yea...
2015: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/yea...
That's just four years.
I wonder also how many of these scientists are climatologists and of the climatologists what percentage are dependant on government grants.
So, you won't read papers about climate that are written by climatologists. You are working very hard to avoid reading any data at all, I see. So, you must like the data from the Berkeley Earth project, which is independent: http://berkeleyearth.org/
well-verified models that have been vetted and analyzed
The models have consistently over-predicted temperatures.
to the contrary, the models have fit the data to well within confidence limits, and continue to do so.
(links [1] [2] [3] [4])
False. They don't even fit the "adjusted" data very well.
This is the typical way deniers argue: I post a links to data, and the deniers simply deny. That's it, no data, no nothing. Whatever it is, just deny it.
That's why they're called deniers. If they had any actual information, they'd be skeptics, but the deniers don't even care about actual information. Whatever it is, they'll just deny it.
> fifty fucking years ago
Thanks for bolding that.
It emphasizes the point that the understanding of the effects of carbon dioxide on the climate is not something new, it's been understood for over half a century.
You're welcome.
I'm not sure why you bothered to respond. However, for predictions, I posted this to a different subthread:
Here's an article from Forbes about the very first Global Climate Model, Manabe and Wetherald 1967, looking back at how well their predictions from fifty years ago compared to data: https://www.forbes.com/sites/s...
well-verified models that have been vetted and analyzed
The models have consistently over-predicted temperatures.
to the contrary, the models have fit the data to well within confidence limits, and continue to do so.
Here's an article from Forbes about the very first Global Climate Model, Manabe and Wetherald 1967, looking back at how well their predictions from fifty years ago compared to data: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/
And here are graphs, showing that the prediction from fifty years ago (red line) fits the data (blue line) almost exactly. https://climategraphs.wordpres...
Later models have refined Manabe and Wetherald 1967, incorporating other effects than simply carbon dioxide and water vapor, but haven't changed the answer. Here is the Berkeley Earth page comparing climate models used in the IPCC report against data: http://berkeleyearth.org/graph...
The problem with the deniers, on the other hand, is that they don't have a prediction. They don't have an alternative model, they don't have anything.
That is total BS. If you look at where forest fires start it is in areas populated by humans.
Seem to be all over the place: https://fsapps.nwcg.gov/google...
The GISS temperature history, with the graphs showing the results of every to their analysis dating back to 1981, is here.
It is, however, not the only factor.
The question is, which one is the alternative fact? Is it their's or your's?
I'd go with the scientists, the ones with massive amounts of data and observations and well-verified models that have been vetted and analyzed and compared to observations for over fifty years, as the ones likely to be correct, rather than the ones that say "I don't trust science, I'm sure they're wrong, and we don't need any actual data or analysis or alternate hypotheses."
Science has a pretty good record that way.
Any solution will be technological;
Wow, at least the deniers finally acknowledge that it's actually real, and might be a problem. It's a start.
it will not be ham fisted attempts to force stone age living on the hoi polloi. (Notice that the elites like Al Gore never do the stone age living thing anyway. That's for you plebes.)
I don't have any idea why the deniers continue to shout over and over again that anybody who says that this is a problem are trying to "force stone-age living on the hoi polloi". I've never actually heard any climate scientists-- you know, the people who noticed that this was a problem that might need solution fifty fucking years ago-- say that, or anything like that.
Yes, I do think solutions will be technological, primarily improved energy supplies that don't produce large amounts of carbon dioxide.
Now that it's too late, we're starting to witness the results first hand, and there's no way to mitigate it without 100x the effort than it would have taken before (assuming it even CAN be mitigated...), what better time to accept that it's actually happening?
Climate change due to anthropogenic global warming is a long term problem. It does not happen overnight. It will require a long term solution. It will not be solved overnight.
Both.
There are many factors involved. One is increased summer temperature (and concommitant drier forests) due to climate change.
Not the only factor. But one factor.
Yes, it really is THAT simple.
Few things are simple.
How can it be taken seriously when they are constantly changing the historical temperature data to match their hypothesis?
"They" are not "changing the historical temperature data to match their hypothesis". That is a made-up alternate-fact being promulgated by the deniers.
You are referring, I assume to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies historical temperature record. The analysis of the data is exhaustively documented , including a FAQ giving an overview for popular audiences that are too bored to read the actual documentation. And the original data set, and all of previous historical analyses, are available on the web, showing that the changes in analysis technique don't alter the conclusion that the climate is warming. Here, for example, are the graphs showing the results of every different correction to the analysis, dating back to 1981.
In any case, you do know that several other groups, such at BEST, also analyze historical climate data, and come out with rates of warming that are essentially the same. So your conspiracy theory that scientists are altering their data in order to hoax the public is going to be a conspiracy of hundreds, and probably thousands, of scientists in independent groups on three different continents.
...I predict most buyers will consider this car to be too unsafe, or too small, or too under-powered.
If 95% of Americans agree and won't buy one ... that's still sales over 300,000 per year.
Which is the sales of the Honda Accord.
You'll get my two stroke lawnmower from my cold dead fingers. You will have to fight my heirs for it. Bring a weapon if you want it.
You can have my lawnmower for free. I hate it. Ick. Noisy and dangerous.
Who the heck invented the idea of lawns that need to be mowed, anyway?
These is so much nicer than the offtopic trump-bashing and democrat-bashing posts we've been getting.
my average trip is closer to 80 kliometers
You ever hear the phrase "different strokes for different folks"?
Well: different cars for different people.
It's defined as a quadricycle -- a light 4-wheel car for street use in the EU ...
except, from the image, this one is a 3-wheeler.
It's cute. I'd get one for bopping around town. Most of the time I don't need the big five-seater sedan.