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: 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!