SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the it's-an-ill-wind-that-blows-no-good dept.
An overwhelming majority of scientists, including numerous UCLA researchers, agree that we have to take action to curb the effects of climate change.
UCLA Chancellor Gene Block joined leaders in higher education from more than 35 states today calling on incoming president Donald Trump's administration to protect the Earth's climate.
Chancellors and presidents from more than 170 colleges and universities signed on to the open letter calling for "aggressive climate action."
Trump has at times described climate change as a hoax and proposed withdrawing from the historic Paris climate agreement signed at the annual United Nations climate conference in 2015. An overwhelming majority of scientists, including numerous UCLA researchers, agree that climate change is caused by humans and will result in dramatic, disruptive changes within this century. UCLA research has projected that without drastic action, Los Angeles will heat up an average of 4 to 5 degrees by midcentury.
"As a university," Block said, "we have a deep commitment to research innovative solutions for tomorrow, to serve the greater public good and to educate the leaders of future generations. Strong federal and international climate action is critical to this mission."
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @04:17PM
Get real. I realize they have to try but they are petitioning the ringleader of the Trump U scam. Facts and, especially, science are neither his interest or his forte.
(Score: 2) by schad on Friday December 23 2016, @07:47PM
It's virtue-signalling and nothing more.
The effect of this letter, if it has any at all, will be to increase political polarization. People who already believe in AGW will engage in a circle-jerk about how dumb Trump is and how he won't listen (see elsewhere in this thread). People who already reject AGW will engage in a circle-jerk about how great it is that Trump is going to stop those ivory tower eggheads with God complexes from ruining America. The net will be just to reinforce preexisting beliefs.
No minds will change as a result of this. Why would they? Everyone already knows that academia is firmly in the AGW camp. If you haven't already been persuaded, there's nothing in this letter that will convince you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @08:31PM
Im not sure where I fall in your worldview. What exactly does "belief in AGW" entail?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 24 2016, @12:40AM
Yeah, the two sides are equally valid but also equally at fault, right? Similar to this case from past history:
The effect of Monsieur Galileo's book Dialogues Concerning the Two Chief World Systems [wikipedia.org], if it has any at all, will be to increase political polarization. People who already believe in the heliocentric theory will engage in a circle-jerk about how dumb the Pope is and how he won't listen (see elsewhere in this thread). People who already reject heliocentrism will engage in a circle-jerk about how great it is that Pope is going to stop those ivory tower eggheads with God complexes from ruining Europe. The net will be just to reinforce preexisting beliefs.
(Score: 3, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday December 23 2016, @04:22PM
Trump is a staunch denier of global warming... except where it threatens his investments. [politico.com]
I sometimes wonder if he himself actually believes anything he says, or if his opinion simply changes every now and again according to some recent input and as soon as he does so his brain immediately erases all memory of him ever having believed anything different.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @04:26PM
I sometimes wonder if he himself actually believes anything he says, or if his opinion simply changes every now and again according to some recent input and as soon as he does so his brain immediately erases all memory of him ever having believed anything different.
What you have described is the difference between lying and bullshitting. Liars know the truth and consciously make an effort to obscure it. Bullshitters have no foundational knowledge and just say whatever serves their interests in the moment. Trump is a consummate bullshiter.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 23 2016, @05:00PM
Modded up! This is a hugely important distinction, and one that people NEED to know. If the truth is a woman, then a liar is her rapist and a bullshitter is her pimp.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday December 23 2016, @05:35PM
I would say Trump is pure Id.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @04:27PM
Rising waters are a thing—certainly a potential thing; it makes sense to build up some kind of insurance against it.
However, that doesn't mean that you must accept the worse predictions of Global Warming, or that you must accept such outcomes as being solely due to the preventable actions of man.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 23 2016, @05:01PM
Yeah Cthulhu forbid we do stuff that grants us energy independence, cleaner air and water, and less pollution. What if we make the world a better place for no reason?! Hurrrrrr.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @05:06PM
"We"
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 23 2016, @05:12PM
Okay, you can go sit on the beach somewhere in Florida and drown slowly. That's absolutely fine by me.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Friday December 23 2016, @05:37PM
Don't worry, Trump and his buddies have a penchant for retiring to tropical islands. It's a problem that will solve itself, and will be a sorely needed laugh while the rest of us are bailing out our basements.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by fritsd on Friday December 23 2016, @07:21PM
This one is for you Azuma:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/environment/ig/Environment-Cartoons/If-Global-Warming-Is-A-Hoax.1-Bh.htm [about.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 24 2016, @06:52AM
Yeah Cthulhu forbid we do stuff that grants us energy independence, cleaner air and water, and less pollution. What if we make the world a better place for no reason?! Hurrrrrr.
"What's good for General Motors is good for the US." This wouldn't be the first time that someone assumes that something they want is good for society.
The whole reason we have a disagreement in the first place is because... we disagree. There's a lot of negative consequences to climate mitigation and the abandonment of cheap fossil fuel infrastructure being ignored here.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday December 24 2016, @04:59PM
Yeah, all those poor starving bankers and oil magnates...whatEVER will they do without those fat subsidies they depend on? I thought you hated welfare queens...
We'll do what we always do in that vaunted free market of yours: we'll adapt.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday December 23 2016, @07:11PM
or that you must accept such outcomes as being solely due to the preventable actions of man.
Good thing nobody is claiming that, then.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fritsd on Friday December 23 2016, @07:16PM
In the book "the Authoritarians" by Altemeyer (PLEASE download it before it suddenly disappears or times out or is wiped to make disk room or Manitoba is conquered by the USA!), Altemeyer mentions something he called
"compartmentalization" [wikipedia.org], somethign all people have, but authoritarians are better at it,
and that is that if you believe two things but they are incompatible, just believe one after the other, never at the same time. You don't have to bring those two world views in alignment or consolidate them.
Those people really do believe that the sky is yellow and that the sky is blue;
If someone they trust talks about "the sky is yellow", then at that moment they really believe the sky is yellow, and if someone they distrust mentions "the sky is yellow", then at that moment they really believe that that's bullshit, everyone knows the sky is blue.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @04:23PM
An "open letter" is the last refuge of the scientifically incompetent; it's exactly the kind of drivel one would expect from modern institutions of so-called "higher learning", where hard-nosed, unblinking inquiry has been replaced with safe spaces.
The truth of the matter is that there is a dispute about global warming; there are questions about not only the way measurements are made and how those measurements are interpreted, but also about the very models used to make predictions, including questions about the correctness of the application of the very mathematical principles on which models are based.
On one side, you've got politicians clamoring for power, researchers clamoring for money, and useful idiots clamoring for a sense of purpose; on the other side, you've got people risking their careers (and now their personal safety) to present thought that is contrary to the fabricated "consensus". Hmmm... I wonder what history tells us about other such asymmetric struggles in science.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @04:31PM
do not pretend to lecture us on facts
you are the one whose made a religion of elevating minor technical disagreements and margins of error into scientific heterodoxy
its neither scientific nor heterodoxy, its just propaganda from the people who benefit the most from ignoring the facts
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @04:33PM
It's the middle stage, remember when big tobacco was still holding forth with "their scientists" claiming no tobacco-cancer linkage? That went on for what, 30 years? These days the tobacco companies have finally been brought to heel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @04:37PM
Remember when the rulers of Europe persecuted Galileo for trying to present evidence that not every "Heavenly" body revolves around the Earth? The rulers were finally brought to heel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @06:03PM
I 'member. 'Member when Ptolemy threw out Hipparchus' model of the solar system in favor of epicycles?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 24 2016, @12:47AM
Pepperidge Farm Remembers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @06:06PM
Things move faster now, Ptolemaic (earth-centered) beliefs hung on for centuries before the Copernican (and Galilean) heliocentric explanation was widely accepted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @04:39PM
Uh huh sure buddy, so what do you think about a full blown creationist on the white house cabinet? Is evolution and radioisotope dating also up for debate? Is the earth being round IP for debate? Do we ignore all the facts just because some corporate shills were paid to confuse you?
Oh right, the ivory tower elites are just out to make you feel dumb and inferior. Its a giant scam which only you and your fellow trumpers are smart enough to see through... I love the money claim, like all these scientists are really devoting their time to bad studies just to keep some grant money flowing.
Oh there is a fabricated consensus all right, and you're proudly carrying the flag.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @04:42PM
Clearly, you're not involved in Academia. That is exactly what the grant process is all about; these days, the Governments do control the purse strings, and you're pretty well fucked if you don't toe the line.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday December 23 2016, @04:54PM
Well then, since the US will shortly have a government packed full of climate change deniers, logically we can expect all of these sycophantic scientists to suddenly change their tune, can't we?
Pray tell AC, exactly how much would you be willing to bet that the massive consensus on climate change among scientists suddenly inverts itself once Trump takes office? Because I'd be willing to take that bet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @05:08PM
That's a straw man. Clearly, there is cultural inertia, and Global Warming has become a facet of the very culture; people do not give up their religions easily, even when those religions are so crazy as to involve cutting up boys' and girls' sexual organs.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday December 23 2016, @05:27PM
Now that was an off-topic strawman.
Why are you bringing circumcision into this?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @05:31PM
How is possible that you cannot understand the context of those remarks?
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday December 23 2016, @07:16PM
I initially assumed they were talking about sex reassignment surgery.
However, I concluded that must not be right because I am not aware of any jurisdiction that allows the surgery to be performed on minors.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @07:32PM
that allows the surgery to be performed on minors
I met a 14-year-old kid in California that received the surgeries two years prior. The parent had to have a psychologist declare that the child was suffering severe psychological stress, so the surgeries would be a medical necessity.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday December 23 2016, @09:27PM
I was under the impression that they try hormone blockers first (age ~12), then hormones (age ~16), then surgery (age ~18).
Your example must have been an extreme case.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @09:53PM
The boy was getting hormone therapy and had the double mastectomy at 11-12 and said the other surgeries followed shortly after (they didn't mention where, but it seemed like everything occurred in California). They did mention that it was very difficult to find doctors that would diagnose the condition (it seemed like they pushed that there was a severe suicide risk and risk of long-term psychological harm) and that it had to fit a specific legal definition to require immediate intervention.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday December 23 2016, @10:04PM
Those are all part of the same process. It's not complete without all three steps.
Using hormone blockers with HRT can cause the endoskeleton chassis to weaken, and estrogen is known to create a subcutaneous layer of fat within the living human tissue. This helps soften the human tissue and mask the endoskeletion beneath while also enabling the tissue to synthesize and perspire pheromones designed to attract human males. Finally, the surgery allows the infiltrator to completely seduce a human male, who may become confused about his allegiances after the infiltrator engages in copulation with the target, even if he discovers the true cybernetic nature of the infiltrator. I believe humans may refer to this as “love.”
The result is an infiltrator sheath that is indistinguishable from a human female without a tissue sample. It also has other effects on the learning computer personality core which enable the infiltrator to merge human female mannerisms even in to the main terminator program. It's the stuff of Sarah Connor's worst nightmares.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday December 23 2016, @11:11PM
Are you trying to take back the 'it' pronoun?
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday December 24 2016, @04:22AM
Not in particular.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday December 23 2016, @05:30PM
That's a straw man.
No, it really isn't. It's a direct and completely on-topic response to the point made. Lets' 'go through it step by step shall we?
1 - OP accuses researchers of "clamouring for money".
2 - AC replying picks up on that and says "I love the money claim, like all these scientists are really devoting their time to bad studies just to keep some grant money flowing."
3 - Another AC (you, I guess) then says "Clearly, you're not involved in Academia. That is exactly what the grant process is all about; these days, the Governments do control the purse strings, and you're pretty well fucked if you don't toe the line."
That is very clearly and unambiguously saying that people in academia simply so whatever they need to do (which presumably involves things like faking evidence & producing papers that support a particular view) to get money from the Government. I really don't see any other way that sentence could possibly be interpreted, unless it is written in a foreign language that just happens to have a lot of words that look like English words but actually mean something entirely different. You are the one moving the goalposts, abandoning the sinking "it's all fabricated to secure funding" meme to clutch desperately at the even more ridiculous "it's not science, it's a religion" one. Like I said a few weeks ago in some other thread, it will be interesting to see whether the alt-right survives Trump: So much of their schtick depends on their self image as an oppressed minority, I'm not sure they will survive the move to the mainstream. The exchange above is a prime example. Oh, and finally:
Clearly,
Inigomontoya.jpg.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @05:34PM
Yeah. And right now all of the academic infrastructure has evolved around the selective pressures of Global Warming Fearmongering; now that the selective pressures are perhaps altering, there is significant resistance, because it threatens the very ecosystem that has become so cozy.
Get it yet?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday December 23 2016, @05:47PM
Nope. You said that researchers want government money, and will say whatever they have to say to get it. You said that. [1]
If the government wants research that points to "global warming is all fake" then the researchers will say so. They don't need a few generations of selective breeding to do it, this is not some evolutionary[2] competition, this is (in your stated opinion), a bunch of cynical human beings who are prepared to tell huge fat lies to the entire world in order to secure their income. If a liar wants to change his lie, he will do so (see the "schizophrenia" thread above) without having to wait to evolve into a different species first. But now suddenly you are saying that climate scientists are unwilling to change their lies because there is some kind of "ecosystem" in place. An ecosystem is made up of cynical liars. Your argument makes no sense at all. Why can't the entire ecosystem of liars simply change their minds when the Money-Faucet changes? They'd have the government backing them, they'd have nothing to lose and everything to gain from doing so.
Or are you saying that they aren't liars, that they are in fact honest researchers doing their jobs as best they can, and who actually believe what they say? You do realise that would completely undermine your own argument, don't you?
I realise it's hard applying logic to alt-right talking points, but please do try to at least be consistent.
[1] I'm assuming you are the same AC.
[2] Congrats on accepting evolution BTW, I would have pegged you as one of those deniers as well.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @06:02PM
In Academia and Politics (and now in popular culture), Global Warming has become an industry. Now that this industry is threatened, incumbents are doing all they can to protect their industry. If they fail to protect their industry, then their industry will dissipate, and researchers will begin building new industries around more lucrative subjects.
As with every complex system, this evolution takes time; in no way does anyone make the argument that allegiance to any particular subject changes immediately—clearly, you are arguing against a Straw Man.
Get it yet?
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @07:05PM
In Academia and Politics (and now in popular culture), Global Warming has become an industry. Now that this industry is threatened, incumbents are doing all they can to protect their industry. If they fail to protect their industry, then their industry will dissipate, and researchers will begin building new industries around more lucrative subjects.
As with every complex system, this evolution takes time; in no way does anyone make the argument that allegiance to any particular subject changes immediately—clearly, you are arguing against a Straw Man.
Get it yet?
----------
The above comment was marked "flamebait" [soylentnews.org] by partisans, so I must include this text here to trick the system into thinking that I've made a new comment with new content.
(Score: 3, Touché) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday December 23 2016, @06:01PM
Yeah. And right now all of the academic infrastructure has evolved around the selective pressures of Global Warming Fearmongering; now that the selective pressures are perhaps altering, there is significant resistance, because it threatens the very ecosystem that has become so cozy.
Get it yet?
Oh, I'm pretty sure the poster understands your argument. The question is -- what is your prediction based on what will happen in the FUTURE, based on the claimed theory?
It's time to run an empirical scientific study, since we may now have the opportunity.
Hypothesis: Climate scientists are mostly a bunch of paid shills who don't believe what they're saying. They just run after the money wherever it is and will endorse whatever viewpoint helps their careers along. In the past, many promoters of this hypothesis have accused the federal government with tampering with this research by their method for awarding grants.
Experiment: Change grant-writing environment to reward scientists who actually are AGAINST climate change and decrease incentives to write pro-climate change "propaganda." See what happens.
IF the hypothesis is true, we should see significant defections and a statistically significant decrease in the consensus for AGW. One might argue that it's harder for those with invested careers to "change their tune," so perhaps the shift should be most noticeable among younger scholars. But it SHOULD happen, IF the hypothesis is true.
So, all of you conspiracy theorists who are convinced that the "scientists" aren't doing "real" science -- here's your chance to prove it scientifically. The fact that some are already responding with objections against such an experimental design seems to indicate that you don't want your theory to actually be tested. Are you afraid you may not be proven correct??
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @06:09PM
People spend a lot of resources promoting their ridiculous religions; the battle could be very long-lived indeed. See here. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @08:51PM
>"a statistically significant decrease in the consensus for AGW"
I think you meant this to be some unlikely possibility, but this is just a matter of sample size. I assure you that by throwing money at skeptics there will be a non-zero decrease. Looking for statistically significant deviations from zero effect is a waste of time btw, no one who knows what they are doing does that (unless there is a real theory that predicts exactly zero effect) .
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday December 24 2016, @09:32AM
"You are the one moving the goalposts, abandoning the sinking "it's all fabricated to secure funding" meme to clutch desperately at the even more ridiculous "it's not science, it's a religion" one.
I don't think you realize that the crux of your argument balances entirely on the idea that people as a whole don't find ways to justify their own fabrications and amplify their cognitive bias - something you, in the same breath, accuse half of the US population of doing. The half you disagree with, I mean.
Scientists pumping out papers to keep the cash flowing is not a "fake news" topic that suddenly appeared from Twitter. To think that some of those desperate debt-laden folk won't eventually come to believe some of the drivel they peddle to convince themselves they aren't liars is naive.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday December 23 2016, @06:09PM
I wouldn't take that bet yet. We still haven't seen any indication whether Trump intends to give the NSF an enema and clear out the political hacks. We still aren't even sure if he intends to truly clean house at EPA. The problem is the government machinery is very resilient against Republican administrations because none to date have been willing to expend the political capital and attention on the problem required to fight against the natural tendency of the government machinery to tend to want more government, thus supporting the Party of government. To fight the natural tendency of government service to attract the sort of meddling midwit incompetents that currently infest it and who are also attracted to the Democratic Party like maggots to a dead cat.
The problem is none of the three recent Republican Administrations have made any efforts in the direction of reigning in the political activity of the midlevel cogs of the vast government machine they nominally administer. Especially on the subject of AGW. In Reagan's time it wasn't a serious problem yet, it was the transition time between scaremongering about the Impending New Ice Age! and the new and improved Fiery Doom Soon If We Don't Repent! Neither Bush appeared to have much of an opinion on the subject, but leaned toward the Democratic position on the issue since both were moderate Progressives and members in good standing in the Establishment.
Shifting the incentives enough to influence behavior would entail seizing control of NSF, and the extensive money flows from the government into academia from so many other sources, and holding control long enough for them to realize it wasn't just a temporary setback soon to be corrected in the next election.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday December 23 2016, @07:26PM
Other industries manage to employ paid scientists to "shill" for them all the time. Big pharma, food additives and nutritional research -- we all know that where ambiguous data CAN be exploited, industry can and has often hired researchers or financed research to help support its position. (And to be fair, I think many research scientists in these industry positions actually believe in the work they do.)
With the pockets of Big Oil and dozens of other related industries that would suffer from increased pro-environmental regulation to combat climate change, where is this army of paid scientists? And don't argue that it has something to do with tenure requirements or whatever, because Big Pharma, the big chemical companies, and the Food Industry has no problem finding scientists with graduate degrees whom they can EMPLOY and finance directly to publish research. If the data is really that open to interpretation, it should be easy to employ a bunch of debunking scientists. (And they probably wouldn't even lost a lot of money doing so, since they could probably charge huge speaking fees on the conservative circuit for these people.)
That's always the most confusing aspect of those who claim a massive conspiracy -- every other industry manages to find a significant number of scientists to shill for them when needed, despite the fact that such scientists are often bucking the research funded by non-industry groups and the government. Yet for some weird reason, it's claimed here on this issue that exactly the opposite happens: industry with big pockets is powerless to recruit an army of shills, and instead all the scientists are jockeying for the much smaller pockets of NSF money. If this is so easy for the government to do, how come it's so hard for them to achieve similar levels of consensus around problematic drugs or chemicals or food additives or whatever?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @09:01PM
I think you are wrong that "big oil" is against governments acting on the climate change narrative. Increased government activity creates a barrier to entry and they are already entrenched in the energy sector.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @07:00PM
"deniers"
When you can't even engage on the issue like a rational person without casting slurs on the other side it only broadcasts that your position is weak and at some level you know it.
"how much would you be willing to bet that the massive consensus on climate change among scientists suddenly inverts itself once Trump takes office?"
The current orthodoxy didn't take hold suddenly and it's unlikely to fade suddenly. Academic disciplines are somewhat conservative by design, we don't want the composition of the university faculty to change so quickly as we have elections, that wouldn't actually work very well. Paradigm changes usually take at least a generation, and that's assuming a functional discipline which may be an assumption too far.
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by tangomargarine on Friday December 23 2016, @07:25PM
This whole argument is a huge exercise in facepalming.
Joe: "There's no such thing as global warming."
Scientist: "Yes there is. We did experiments."
Joe: "Show me the evidence."
Scientist: "Here is our evidence."
Joe: "Your methods are wrong."
Scientist: "Okay, how about these other experiments X, Y, and Z."
Joe: "You're crazy so everything you do uses wrong methods."
Scientist: "So what about these other scientists F, G, H, and I, who did experiments that agree with my results?"
Joe: "You're all using bad methods."
Scientist: "But F, G, H, and I agree that our methods are rigorous."
Joe: "You're all part of a conspiracy and will say whatever They want you to say."
Scientist: "So the anti-conspiracy guys just got into power. Let's do an experiment to see whether we're all liars as you claim and thus flip to the other side."
Joe: "No. I might get proven wrong."
It's like listening to people in Palestine whine that everything sucks when they're constitutionally incapable of ceding even an inch towards attempting to work with the other side.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Funny) by Joe on Friday December 23 2016, @10:07PM
Hey!
Don't slander my good name.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @11:50PM
It's like listening to people in Palestine whine that everything sucks when they're constitutionally incapable of ceding even an inch towards attempting to work with the other side.
Seems to me you give deniers way too much credibility. They aren't living in lands occupied by a foreign military force that practices collective punishment on the families and neighbors of anyone who resists them.
I mean, sure climate deniers like to think that's exactly what its like to be a climate denier. But come on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 24 2016, @12:44AM
Can you even write without using the strawman?
Wrong right off the gate. Just absolutely completely wrong. Not even in the ballpark, fouled into someones car in the lot.
Very few if any doubt that the global mean temperature, could we properly measure it, has risen for several decades. You'd have to stoop to Jerry Springer levels to find someone that would argue that there's no global warming.
What we are skeptical of are the other parts of your creed. Are humans causing it, or is it part of some natural cycle? Or a mix of the two? Will it continue, or will it subside, or even reverse? To be just moderately sure of your answer, as an honest scientist, you would have to believe that you understand exactly how each and every factor affects all the others and plays out as a complex system. That's not a level of understanding even remotely attainable at the moment, new and relevant facts are being discovered on a regular basis, despite the confirmation bias that permeates the field!
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday December 28 2016, @03:03PM
Are humans causing it, or is it part of some natural cycle? Or a mix of the two?
Only one of those 3 options means we should do nothing to slow it. So the prudent thing to do would be get to work on fixing the problem and figure out as we go, assuming that it will get worse. This is the sort of thing that probably has a point of no return, so if we stand around all day arguing about it, insisting on getting concrete, 110% sure, impossible-to-question (ha) evidence confirming it, it'll be next century before we get anywhere. And then we're probably past the point of no return and most reasonable people get to say "see, we told you so," but it won't really matter anymore.
To be just moderately sure of your answer, as an honest scientist, you would have to believe that you understand exactly how each and every factor affects all the others and plays out as a complex system. That's not a level of understanding even remotely attainable at the moment, new and relevant facts are being discovered on a regular basis, despite the confirmation bias that permeates the field!
Yeah, exactly. Let's all stick our heads in the sand because it's expensive.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday December 28 2016, @03:05PM
Very few if any doubt that the global mean temperature, could we properly measure it, has risen for several decades.
Funny, because you're sure using a hell of a lot of weasel words to avoid saying you do.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @07:27PM
Denying facts is what brought up the term "deniers". What level of wording would be acceptable to your feels? Climate change argumentalist? Person who does not agree with the scientific community?
Orthodoxy? There is no reason for scientists to be magically pro-climate change. The simple fact that you think its a vast ideological conspiracy speaks volumes. Get some data or GTFO. So far all the research against climate change is tenuous and generally amounts to criticizing the research of others. Interesting that such research is also quite often tied back to energy companies reliant on oil/gas.
Take the blinders off before you run us over a cliff!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 24 2016, @07:03AM
I'm sick and tired of all those Ferrari driving academics.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by jmorris on Friday December 23 2016, @06:22PM
I love the money claim, like all these scientists are really devoting their time to bad studies just to keep some grant money flowing.
Because you are a moron arguing in bad faith. It doesn't work that way and if you are smarter than a turnip you realize it too, hence the accusation of bad faith.
Imagine a thousand young skulls of mush working their way through the university system studying the climate. Every professor is assuring them AGW is real and will kill everyone because any who don't lost funding and tenure, probably had protests outside the classroom, etc. and went into another line of work. Now they graduate and want to get to work, Because of the brainwashing 900 are probably on board with the program already. The hundred smartest, the ones who actually took the advanced statistics classes and know how to see the bullshit, took enough programming to realize how pathetic most of the 'models' are, etc. have a decision to make. Abandon the field or go along with the scam because there is no money in opposing the consensus and you will be declared "not a scientist" and pretty much banished from working in ANY field, probably for life. After all, you can still do a lot of interesting stuff in the field so long as you mouth the platitudes on command, sign the occasional 'open letter' and look the other way when peer reviewing the bullshit your colleagues are pushing out into the journals. I'm sure the sane scientists working during the times of Lysenkoism had to do similar things.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @07:53PM
banished from working in ANY field
Do you think all the Big Business that would benefit from "there is no such thing as climate change" would not give them a job? Are Big Oil/Coal/"dirty energy" taking the high road and trying not to influence science?
You make it sound like all the smart people are the "little guy" without anyone able to help them because nobody wants to know the truth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @09:11PM
Oblig Fisher quote:
"We are quite in danger of sending highly trained and highly intelligent young men out into the world with tables of erroneous numbers under their arms, and with a dense fog in the place where their brains ought to be. In this century, of course, they will be working on guided missiles and advising the medical profession on the control of disease, and there is no limit to the extent to which they could impede every sort of national effort." -Fisher, R N (1958). "The Nature of Probability". Centennial Review. 2: 261–274. http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher272.pdf [york.ac.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @04:57PM
They are lying about math? In the 2 + 2 is really 5 sense?
Where are the deniers' models? Rather than complain, make a better one. Put your model where your mouth is.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday December 23 2016, @05:53PM
Here you go:
Josh takes on XKCD’s ‘climate timeline’ [wattsupwiththat.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @05:02PM
What is in dispute?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/russia-moves-to-promote-northeast-passage-through-arctic-ocean-a-917824.html [spiegel.de]
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday December 23 2016, @05:29PM
They are jumping on the fact they there was more ice farther north this year.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @06:13PM
Who is disputing global warming? What are their sources?
Everyone can come up with an incoherent conspiracy rant. If you are going to argue that the global scientific consensus is wrong, you better have some really conclusive evidence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @06:16PM
Science is about questioning any so-called "consensus", not relying on that so-called "consensus".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @06:54PM
Such as evolution [ideacenter.org], or even the atomic theory. Has anyone ever seen an atom?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @07:09PM
* Evolution has been the subject of a humongous global debate; that's why the evidence for Evolution is so meticulous.
* Yes. People have "seen" an atom.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @07:13PM
That's all fine and good when you have decent evidence. Just claiming to be "challenging the consensus" sounds very dramatic and brave, but when you dig a little deeper there is no substance. You poor oppressed conservatives, THIS WOULD BE HILARIOUS IF IT WASN'T SO IMPORTANT!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @07:28PM
It's not that important.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @08:54PM
> Just claiming to be "challenging the consensus" sounds very dramatic and brave, but when you dig a little deeper there is no substance.
Trump surrogate on climate change last week: [cnn.com]
Science sometimes gets things wrong. Climate change is scientific, therefore climate change is wrong.
PS, I should know because I'm not a scientist, so I don't get things wrong!
I am not making this shit up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @09:17PM
You did make that up though, the dude said: "I'm not suggesting that we're not affecting the change. I honestly don't know."
In fact, despite their best efforts, this guy sounds eminently reasonable:
"Whether you believe in climate change or not, we want clean air. We want clean water for the American people, but we also want energy independence," he added.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @09:16PM
And with what evidence are you questioning this consensus? You must have some amazing evidence if you argue that the entire scientific community is wrong.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday December 23 2016, @04:52PM
What is the actual action proposed and provide some engineering estimates of the effects. Oh, you say the action recommended is great piles of money for researchers and some theater acts that will have no or minimal impact? Oh what a complete surprise.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday December 23 2016, @04:54PM
Burn a few tires.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @04:58PM
> Oh, you say the action recommended is great piles of money for researchers
Yeah, those PhD's are raking in the big bucks with their climate scams. They know that climate research is so lucrative that they chose to forgo jobs in silicon valley and wallstreet because those jobs pay peanuts in comparison.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @05:11PM
Yeah, those PhDs are angels—demigods formed of finer clay than the rest of us; they want nothing but to serve others and then by virtue of their goodness, transform into energy beings, and ascend into the 5th dimension where they can watch over each and every one of us.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday December 23 2016, @05:34PM
Wow, I want to get a PhD in Stargate Dynamics now.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @10:27PM
Sounds like some people don't like realizing that there are smarter people than themselves. These less educated citizens can't face their own ignorance with grace and must double down on tearing apart their own society. Thanks obummers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @05:32PM
Hey, that why I got a Ph.D. in science. It's all fast cars, fast women, and I eat steak every day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 23 2016, @06:16PM
I feel like I should watch/listen to conservative news channels just so I can see how their propaganda talking points get spread. There are specific arguments that get created, and new ones are always needed because the old ones eventually lose their distraction potential as people catch on. The greedy research-for-money bit is so weird, and its such a coincidence that the anti climate change researchers are the ones who would better fit that description.
Accuse your opponents of your own faults so they spend time defending themselves instead of seeing how full of shit the other side is.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 23 2016, @07:26PM
The Holy Trinity--or perhaps the three treasures (sword, mirror, jewel)--of the modern "conservative" consists of ignorance, hypocrisy, and projection. Goering didn't invent the Big Lie theory; he just named and popularized it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday December 23 2016, @07:31PM
I tried to listen to Rush Limbaugh bouncing off the stratosphere a few times. I would loose signal before he gets to the point.
It appears to me the conservative talking heads say things with conviction, but little substance.
A common tactic is to hold "debates" where the audience is invited to ask questions, then the host goes on a 15 minute tangential rant. The host has talking points they want to go through, and anticipate common questions.
The exact wording of the question does not matter to them. I know this because I once asked a simple establishing question in a pro-life 'debate' "When is the child separate?"): -- The presenter droned on for 15 minutes about how some people think infanticide is OK and Japanese (POW) internment camps. Only after I rephrased my as "When to you believe the child deserves legal protection?" did I get a simple answer in return: "At conception".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 24 2016, @12:54AM
You may think it is bunk.
First day of class of one of my CS classes.
"I am not here to teach I am here to research I was assigned this class so I can keep my standing in the department".
Tell me that is not common.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 24 2016, @02:42AM
Because one of your professors was reluctant to do his/her assigned teaching duties, it means what?
The parent is making the point that if scientists are willing to fabricate their results to get money, then why isn't there scientists fabricating results to get money from Big Oil/Coal.
(Score: 3, Touché) by krishnoid on Friday December 23 2016, @08:12PM
He already tweeted about this earlier this week [nbcnews.com]. Anthropogenic climate change will be drastically curtailed after we have a lot fewer anthros (or whatever they mutate into) and their machinery generating it.
(Score: 3, Touché) by linkdude64 on Saturday December 24 2016, @09:22AM
Obviously the solution to global warming is nuclear winter.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Saturday December 24 2016, @01:01AM
This just hammers the nails into the coffin of compromise. Those elitist bastards are at it again, hopefully trump can bitchsmack them into submission by taking all their filthy grant money stolen from hardworking americans. If it wasn't for research grants we'd all be a lot more rich!
just in case: /s
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 24 2016, @04:36AM
An "open letter" is the last refuge of the scientifically incompetent; it's exactly the kind of drivel one would expect from modern institutions of so-called "higher learning", where hard-nosed, unblinking inquiry has been replaced with safe spaces.
The truth of the matter is that there is a dispute about global warming; there are questions about not only the way measurements are made and how those measurements are interpreted, but also about the models used to make predictions, including questions about the correctness of the application of the very mathematical principles on which those models are based.
On one side, you've got politicians clamoring for power, researchers clamoring for money, and useful idiots clamoring for a sense of purpose; on the other side, you've got people risking their careers (and now their personal safety) to present thought that is contrary to the fabricated "consensus". Hmmm... I wonder what history tells us about other such asymmetric struggles in science.
---------------
After a long time, people organized themselves enoughto mark as "flamebait" [soylentnews.org] the above comment; I have re-posted it here, so that it's visible somewhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 24 2016, @05:00AM
Cowardly drivel like these:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/01/open-letter-to-mr-khizr-khan.html [foxnews.com]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/7/open-letter-colin-kaepernick/ [washingtontimes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 26 2016, @08:22AM
WattsUpWithThat caught my attention with a recent tweet:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/18/u-s-average-temperature-16f-colder-than-any-time-last-winter-and-winter-hasnt-started-yet/ [wattsupwiththat.com]
Which I felt was very misleading of them re: weather vs climate.
It's downright obnoxious given the months of high arctic temperatures and low arctic ice extent this year ( which I can't see mentioned ? ).
That's a pretty serious mistake for "the most read climate website" to make by accident.