Customize

Climate change - a retard’s perspective

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by The Internet, Jan 17, 2014.

  1. White Tara Global Moderator

    No but statements of consensus need to be confined to that which they state in the above article that there is warming and that its LIKELY caused by mans actions.

    The necessary and accurate use of the word 'likely' is the niggling detail that leaves room for the media to keep debating endlessly the veracity of man made emissions being the cause.

    We all like certainty in this world, especially when it comes to spending swathes of money to combat a situation, however the nature of science being in constant evolution does not allow for that kind of certainty in most things.
  2. BLiP Member

    The MSM use of weasel words such as "likely" is part of the problem and ignores the science.


    If concensus amongst a conservative group of specialist scientists amounts to a 99.9% certaintity that human activity is contributing significantly and deletoriously to catastrophic climate change amounts to "likely" then either the MSM has not done its fact checking or the narrative is being driven by denialists.

  3. The Internet Member

    I think the language in the latest big international report gets a little stronger because the scientists are recognizing how difficult it is for the public to understand statistical probabilities. They don’t go so far as to yell, “Look it is getting warmer and all that stuff we burn is speeding up the warming. We really mean this! No lie!” But they do go outside the usual dry objective comfort zone they typically like.

    There are excesses, people who seem willing to say scary things without being clear about the evidence backing their position. I think the way some scientists have been fair gamed has injured them emotionally. For example, this piece:

    I’m not saying the guy who wrote this is wrong about anything; he’s probably right about most of what he says. But the piece makes me feel worried for him.

    He wants to save us from ourselves. Maybe we need that. But I know humans and I don’t think any of them can do careful science and also save the retards at the same time. It’s just too heavy a burden for any of us to carry.

    The one thing that just might save the retards: good information about what is happening. We need a way to separate propaganda from real info. Right now we are drowning in the misinformation and that is gonna make us insane.

    This is why I do not like the Kochs, the way they bullshit everybody. Let them be capitalists and political manipulators and serial rapists or whatever the fuck they want. But no mass media propaganda that is not true. They have billions and they can’t be doing that.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. White Tara Global Moderator

    The article posted by TI http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
    quotes the report by The national Academy of Sciences as assessing the IPCC conclusion that warming is 'likely' man made emissions induced.

    Whereas the IPCC maintains its achieved consensus that climate is being effected by human activities.

    The two seem to have semantic differences in the way they express their confidence in the results.

    Agreed to the media and the general public these words represent an opportunity to question the conclusions, however in this case i trust the journalist who wrote the article did not misquote either academic body.
  5. The gletsjers are expanding in 186 countries and the Ice at the northpole is growing up straight and vertical
  6. White Tara Global Moderator

    When they are charged with informing the public of impending doom they had better be very confident of the facts, maybe even confident enough to deliver the news in absolutes if they wish to get the full support of all.
  7. White Tara Global Moderator

    OMG! its Hubbard induced climate change everybody run for your lives! :) Flatulant bastard!
  8. And the suppressive sea level s not rising at all , it has been shuddered into silence by a SP-declare
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Reality

    We Dutch know our stuff, half our country is below sea level, If we say sea levels are rising they are

    And another thing we offered help to pump New Orleans dry, Amerifucks waited two weeks to finnaly accept
  10. Anonylemmi Member

    We can solve this by destroying the economy. So I am told. Simple, right? It will all be bluebirds and butterflys in no time.
  11. Go away stig
  12. White Tara Global Moderator

    Which is why its important to know what if anything can be done to stop, slow or reverse the warming. Identifying for certain if it is too late and deciding how to prepare and protect existing populations from that which may be inevitable may be a better way to go than throwing good money at attempting the impossible. Sure reduce emissions, but for fuck sake lets prepare ourselves if its inevitable as well.
  13. Anonylemmi Member

    Actually I am neither a denier nor much of a skeptic anymore. The Earth is getting warmer. We are likely the prime cause. But where they lose me is in the hysterical alarmism and demands for instant fixes no matter the cost in money or in human suffering.
    Do I have the answer? No. But rushing to conclusions rarely ends well.
    • Like Like x 2
  14. The Internet Member

    I, personally, have no solutions. Destroying the economy doesn’t seem like a good idea though, because whatever solutions we find will likely require piles of money to make happen.

    I feel like the issue of solutions needs to come later, after we understand why we all think the global warming thing is iffy when in fact, pretty much the entire scientific community agrees it is happening. Something is wrong with the way we are being informed about stuff.

    The humans beings are some tough and clever buggers. They can solve whatever comes their way. But they need the facts. They need good info. If they get the info, there’s hope. If not, well how will they be able to think things through?
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Do as the Dutch build something to keep you safe
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Anonylemmi Member

    I really do need a Like button.
  17. Actually Americans who consume 25 % of the worlds energy who are about 300 Million on a total population of 7 Billion could make a difference if they wanted too. But of course America is the perpetual spoiled little brat for ever
  18. Anonylemmi Member

    America is not forever. We are fading fast. We will soon be another 3rd world country you can safely ignore.
  19. White Tara Global Moderator

    The dying days of the Roman Empire springs to mind.
  20. Anonylemmi Member

    I did not mean destroy the economy as a direct solution. The destruction of the economy follows pulling all the money out of it and squandering it on theoretical fixes.
  21. Well Yellowstone Park must go boom sometime I geuss
  22. Do you know what made me conclude that America is morraly bankrupt?

    Dead peasant Insureance

    http://deadpeasantinsurance.com/
    What is “Dead Peasant” Insurance?

    Dead Peasant Insurance is sometimes used as a shorthand reference for life insurance policies that insure a company’s rank-and-file employees and name the company as the beneficiary. This means that the company receives the life insurance benefits when the covered employees die. This insurance may also be called “janitor insurance,”…

    Edit: Satanism has nothing on the Greed of corporations
    • Like Like x 2
  23. Anonylemmi Member

    Ya can't blame us for Yellowstone. That is gonna be a bitch.
    • Like Like x 1
  24. The Internet Member

    Well that’s probably not the way to go, eh?

    We have, I dunno, a million clever engineers. We have a space program. We keep inventing new computer processors that do far more with less energy. All we need to really get cooking is to understand the problem as well as we possibly can. Not just a few scientists, but everybody.
    • Like Like x 1
  25. White Tara Global Moderator

    That is truly disgusting. I had no idea. :(
    • Like Like x 1
    • Like Like x 1
  26. Anonylemmi Member

    Per Wikipedia - "Although this article refers only to practice and policy in the United States, key person insurance is used in other countries as well."
    • Like Like x 2
  27. Legally corporations can do that in my country but they do not, because there will be hell to pay
    • Like Like x 2
  28. Anonylemmi Member

    See? I really do need that Like button. :)
    • Like Like x 2
  29. So climate change is real ! : Why? because the upper level guys say its not
  30. White Tara Global Moderator

    Aw christ, Soylent green is real.
  31. Anonylemmi Member

    The core issue is energy. Wind, solar etc. have hidden costs that price it out of range in a free market, or it would be everywhere. We are nowhere near technologically mature enough to be dabbling in nuclear power.
    I have no answer other than educating people to be less wasteful of what they do use. The less you use, the less you pollute.
  32. The Internet Member

    There is definitely a lot of hype around alternative energy that needs close scrutiny. Unfortunately, due to crap reporting I guess, people aren’t clear about the problems. This means politicians are free to vote for bills that please their campaign funders without worrying about a public backlash.

    I feel like we need both freedom of speech and also a few places where info has to meet certain evidential standards or it’s not allowed. The free forum can correct problems with the peer reviewed forum, which shouldn’t happen too often if people are motivated to call out bullshit when it happens. Right now the mainstream news puts out bullshit and we all have to suck it, because we want free speech and the news outlets don’t suffer much for crappy articles.
    • Like Like x 1
  33. The Internet Member

    More literature reviews by different people showing how incredibly strong the consensus within science is regarding global warming and human CO2 production as a factor. I mean, fucking staggering. Each of those nearly 14,000 published, peer reviewed articles likely had several authors and likely represented a ton of work. Because unlike the papers from the Koch funded think tanks, these papers have to have evidence or they are careful reviews of other papers with evidence.

    So regardless of your opinion about whether global warming is happening or not, you have to admit that there is a a crazy huge real consensus among working scientists all around the globe.

    So why the fuck are the public so confused about this? Why do they think “global warming” is just some hoax, or some fake work by guys nervous about getting funding? That is just crazy talk.

    The Phil Plait article has links but they are hard to see unless you view the article on Slate (link at the bottom)

    The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial
    By Phil Plait
    JAN. 14 2014 8:00 AM

    To me, one of the most fascinating aspects of climate change denial is how deniers essentially never publish in legitimate journals, but instead rely on talk shows, grossly error-laden op-eds, and hugely out-of-date claims (that were never right to start with).

    In 2012, National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell investigated peer-reviewed literature published about climate change and found that out of 13,950 articles, 13,926 supported the reality of global warming. Despite a lot of sound and fury from the denial machine, deniers have not really been able to come up with a coherent argument against a consensus. The same is true for a somewhat different study that showed a 97 percent consensus among climate scientists supporting both the reality of global warming and the fact that human emissions are behind it.

    Powell recently finished another such investigation, this time looking at peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. Out of 2,258 articles (with 9,136 authors), how many do you think explicitly rejected human-driven global warming? Go on, guess!

    One. Yes, one. Here’s what that looks like as a pie chart:
    climatedenial_published.gif.CROP.original-original.gif
    Graph by James Powell

    Huh. Here’s the thing: If you listen to Fox News, or right-wing radio, or read the denier blogs, you’d have to think climate scientists were complete idiots to miss how fake global warming is. Yet despite this incredibly obvious hoax, no one ever publishes evidence exposing it. Mind you, scientists are a contrary lot. If there were solid evidence that global warming didn’t exist, or that CO2 emissions weren’t the culprit, there would be papers in the journals about it. Lots of them.

    I base this on my own experience with contrary data in astronomy. In 1998, two teams of researchers found evidence that the expansion of the Universe was not slowing down, as expected, but actually speeding up. This idea is as crazy as holding a ball in your hand, letting go, and having it fall up, accelerating wildly into the sky. Yet those papers got published. They inspired lively discussion (to say the least) and motivated further observations. Careful, meticulous work was done to eliminate errors and confounding factors, until it became very clear that we were seeing an overturning of the previous paradigm. It took years, but now astronomers accept that the Universal expansion is accelerating and that dark energy is the culprit.

    Mind you, dark energy is far, far weirder than anything climate change deniers have come up with, yet it became mainstream science in a decade or so. Deniers have been bloviating for longer than that, yet their claims are rejected overwhelmingly by climate scientists. Why? Because they’re wrong.

    Of course, if you listen to some politicians, you’d never know. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), for example, still claims it’s all a hoax. Of course, he still thinks Climategate was a thing, when it’s been shown repeatedly to have been totally manufactured. He also thinks global warming must be wrong because it got cold outside. With all due respect to the senator, he’d fail middle school science. Good thing he’s on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. His denial of reality is joined by three-fourths of the Republicans on the House Science Committee, who still have their heads firmly buried in the sand.

    Happily, though, there is opposition. Democrats in the Senate are pushing for Congress to take this situation more seriously, forming a “Climate Action Task Force” whose goal is to “wake up Congress.” They want to help organize civil groups to pressure senators into taking action about climate change.

    Let me make a none-too-subtle political point here. Climate change deniers in politics and in the media are overwhelmingly Republican (or “free market libertarians,” who have aligned themselves to virtual indistinguishability from the GOP, or more likely vice versa). When I write on the politics of this issue I get accused of being biased, which is ironic indeed. I didn’t start this fight, nor did I draw the partisan lines. I’m just shining a light on them. I know some pro-science Republicans, but the ones in elected office are few and far between.

    The basic science of global warming is independent of party line. It doesn’t care if you’re left, right, black, white, straight, gay, pro-gun, pro-abortion rights, pro-GMO, or pro-vaccine. It’s real, and it affects all of us. Mission No. 1 is to get people to understand this, and then to get them to elect politicians who do as well.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...y_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html
    • Like Like x 1
  34. Anonylemmi Member

    The deniers are a non-issue. They are few and as you say, they cannot gain ground without evidence. The skeptics are the swing-voters.
    We are back to what are we going to do to solve this dilemma.
    You may be on to something with this, but how can it be implemented?
    "I feel like we need both freedom of speech and also a few places where info has to meet certain evidential standards or it’s not allowed. The free forum can correct problems with the peer reviewed forum, which shouldn’t happen too often if people are motivated to call out bullshit when it happens. Right now the mainstream news puts out bullshit and we all have to suck it, because we want free speech and the news outlets don’t suffer much for crappy articles"
    • Like Like x 1
  35. The Internet Member

    PBS gets tax dollars. Maybe we can figure a way to make part of their broadcasting a kind of “this is legit” archive of articles and videos, with some system for punishing the fuck out of anyone who lies to us.
    • Like Like x 1
  36. We can not change it, we have to live with it
    We can not change it, we just have to brace for it, get your Dykes(not lesbians) and Levies up order

    Soon we can grow wine anywhere in my country, ever heared of dutch wine ?
  37. Asheera Member

    Picking on this comment specifically because I think it does more to illustrate the validity of the very concept it attempts to challenge, and represents a classic example of climate-change denial at work. Consider the following:

    - Not a single examination nor presentation of any evidence on the topic itself was discussed or even referenced in this comment. That any 'suspicion level' was affected by anything other than evidence says it all really.
    - Attempted conflation of deniers with skeptics, completely ignoring that 'skeptic' requires some argumentation or at least reference to evidence, while also conflating this to an 'open mind'.
    - Gross over-simplification by asking questions ("Why in the area of climate science is it now accepted as immutable fact that human activity is the cause of this latest period of climate change?") that a mere five minutes with google would have assisted with answering. But it is a question asking for evidence that only serves to avoid a discussion of evidence, an irony of sorts.

    This may appear a harsh treatment of a seemingly innocuous comment, but consider that virtually identical framing and tactics adorn the comments of the 'evolution skeptic', the homeopathy proponents, the quantum-woo merchants, and practically every other shit-peddling group whose ideas conflict with the workings of reality. The harshness is merited by the vacuousness of the comment imo. If a comment on climate change isn't based on evidence regarding climate change then...how is that not captured with the term 'climate change denier'??

    -------------------------------------------------------------
    "Why in the area of climate science is it now accepted as immutable fact that human activity is the cause of this latest period of climate change?"

    Ignoring the blatant strawman component of this question, I will attempt to explain the basics of why the vast vast majority of climate scientists have concluded a they have.

    Starting observations:
    - Atmospheric temperature increase. Global instrumental records, when collated, indicate a clear tread of increasing.
    - Alterations in migration patterns and flora and fauna distributions, all consistent with the observed instrumental record.
    - Steady rise in sea levels.
    - Glacial records & ice thickness variance.

    Each of these observations strongly evidence an increase in heat energy within the climate system. The consequences of each observation are fairly well known and predictable, and those consequences are being observed. For example, shifting disease vectors is a direct result of altering migration patterns (eg: Chikungunya spread in Europe). Also, with increased energy within the ocean systems storms will have larger energy reserves to draw on - and modelling shows this should lead to fewer storms overall, but tend to increase the severity of those storms that take hold (which matches with hurricane observations). Another consequence is, due to higher energy, increased precipitation in the polar regions with a reduction in ice thickness (i.e. more snow with weaker ice).

    The trend is clear. Which raises the obvious question of the cause. There are numerous known sources that affect climate, including but not limited to cloud cover, ocean heat, atmospheric particulates, the sun (and its cycles), chemical composition of the atmosphere, etc. A brief example to illustrate the particulates is when Vesuvius erupted in 79AD, with the resulting climatic impact visible in the dendrochronological record (tree rings).

    The impact of each of these causes can be estimated and quantified. Each can be considered a component that makes a contribution (whether positive or negative) to the climatic system, and the paleoclimatic record is an invaluable source for guidance. For example, the cycles of the sun can be measured an quantified. Particulate aerosols, to take another example, reflect solar radiation and have a net cooling effect. At this point it becomes a summing game, treating each component as a contributor to a large-scale energy system.

    When all known factors, EXCEPT human infrastructure carbon emissions, are considered the result suggests that the temperature should be decreasing or stable.

    When all known factors, INCLUDING human infrastructure carbon emissions, are considered the result matches what we are observing.

    This is, in essence, a simplified form of the anthropogenic climate change argument. Each portion of this has dozens (in some cases hundreds) of research articles behind it. When you really dig into the details, and particularly get your head around how the quantification is done, it is a very compelling evidence-derived argument.
    See any of the IPCC reports. You don't have to trust the IPCC either, since the reports are little more than an extended summary of the scientific research on the topic - each of the research papers cited stand independently on the IPCC. If you doubt any claims made in the report you can dig out the cited research papers and find out what the science says for yourself.

    Why though? How often have you seen journalists screw up the subject of Scientology? Many mistakes are not out of malice either, but simply due to the journalist not having the years of research needed to grasp the extent of the Scientology scam. Compare Ortega, who has the background, to any mainstream journalist.

    How can a journalist, without the needed training in statistics, climatology, chemistry, computational modelling, data proxies, etc., be expected to accurate convey accurate information on a technical topic such as this?

    It's also worth pointing out that, strictly speaking, the definitive position of either the IPCC or the NAS is in the research papers. The summary for policymakers is intended to be an accessible overview of the research. The NAS completely agreed with the IPCC report, but felt that a more thorough explanation of the confidence levels was warranted in the summary. Calling two different summary approaches of a summary of a huge body of research a 'semantic difference' is just odd tbh.

    Not if you look at the nation level. Energy costs, in terms of oil and gas imports, are a significant portion of the GDP of most nations. Introduction of technologies that reduce such import costs would, long term, be highly beneficial from an economic perspective. Technology that exists today would, if implemented, take a serious chunk out of the oil and gas import costs of a nation. From a strictly private industry perspective, yes, green energy hasn't developed a workable business model - but from the national perspective it is already there.
    • Like Like x 1
  38. The Internet Member

    When I first read this, I was thinking of “deniers” as the handful of think-tank funded “scientists” who don’t publish any evidence but who go on TV all the time. But then I thought of all the non-professional deniers, like the Republican party. That is like half of America. So that is an issue.

    The fact that the deniers have gained so much political ground without any fucking evidence proves you wrong. It also proves that something with our mass media is fucked up.

    People in my family who listen to right wing talk shows on the radio develop this mental elasticity. I can explain to them that a scientific consensus is a summary of all the published evidence in the peer reviewed scientific literature. So “consensus” in a scientific context is not just a bunch of yahoos sitting in a room agreeing to launch some hoax for jewgolds.

    People understand me while I’m talking to them. They get it. But when I see them a month later, they’re back to their old ways of thinking like we never had a conversation.

    I think this is evidence that it takes time to really understand complicated subjects. If someone only has a superficial understanding, they can lose that if they’re socially pressured with mass media propaganda.

    Or in other words, clever mass media lies will probably kill us all one day.

    We have to recover some identifiable conduit for factual information that is not in dispute. People don’t have time to research everything they hear. We need some media source where the cost of getting the facts wrong is so high, writers won’t dare mislead us.

    I’m talking about a kind of monopoly on truth, but not really. We will always have our infotainment sources and people will be eager to catch the better source in any errors.

    We need one information map, not several. Because we’re on this journey together, working together. If we have 18 different maps, we are going to fight and get lost.

    One really trustworthy news source should raise the bar for the crappy network news sources. They will lose their audiences if people always go to the trustworthy source. Right now, the economic incentives favor propaganda designed to pander to audience narcissism and that promotes messages paid for by special interests. The trustworthy source needs to be protected from those pressures.
  39. The Internet Member

    People have noticed that kids in Finland score high on academic achievement tests --higher than kids in most other countries. Finland did something interesting: they made teaching a real profession or guild. They gave their teachers good salaries and autonomy in their classrooms.

    Guilds create an internal currency of peer recognition and respect. People gain status through being good at their jobs. People with a high status rarely want to trade that away for things like mere money.

    What if we replicated Finland’s educational model for our journalists?

    A misinformed public means a public who can’t hold their elected representatives to account. This is a recipe for disaster. So I really would like to make the crap reporting problem a priority somehow.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins