SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://m.phys.org/news/2017-11-scientists-countries-negative-global-environmental.html
Human well-being will be severely jeopardized by negative trends in some types of environmental harm, such as a changing climate, deforestation, loss of access to fresh water, species extinctions and human population growth, scientists warn in today's issue of BioScience, an international journal.
The viewpoint article—"World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice"—was signed by more than 15,000 scientists in 184 countries.
The warning came with steps that can be taken to reverse negative trends, but the authors suggested that it may take a groundswell of public pressure to convince political leaders to take the right corrective actions. Such activities could include establishing more terrestrial and marine reserves, strengthening enforcement of anti-poaching laws and restraints on wildlife trade, expanding family planning and educational programs for women, promoting a dietary shift toward plant-based foods and massively adopting renewable energy and other "green" technologies.
Global trends have worsened since 1992, the authors wrote, when more than 1,700 scientists—including a majority of the living Nobel laureates at the time—signed a "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" published by the Union of Concerned Scientists. In the last 25 years, trends in nine environmental issues suggest that humanity is continuing to risk its future. However, the article also reports that progress has been made in addressing some trends during this time.
The article was written by an international team led by William Ripple, distinguished professor in the College of Forestry at Oregon State University. The authors used data maintained by government agencies, nonprofit organizations and individual researchers to warn of "substantial and irreversible harm" to the Earth.
"Some people might be tempted to dismiss this evidence and think we are just being alarmist," said Ripple. "Scientists are in the business of analyzing data and looking at the long-term consequences. Those who signed this second warning aren't just raising a false alarm. They are acknowledging the obvious signs that we are heading down an unsustainable path. We are hoping that our paper will ignite a wide-spread public debate about the global environment and climate."
Other links:
Here is the official page where you can read the full article, endorse the article, view signatories, and endorsers
Direct link to full article in PDF
(Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @06:57PM (42 children)
But here's how it's ordered in the new letter [oregonstate.edu]:
Ozone depletion is considered more or less solved with CFC production way down from the 1980s so it got dropped from the list. So climate change has moved from second to last place in the list to first place in the journalist's list even though it hasn't gotten much worse in the meantime (as the updated letter indicates, no less!) - unlike biodiversity destruction in the developing world, ocean dead zones, and human population growth (getting better, but still increasing at almost linear rate over past 25 years).
Once again, climate change is elevated to a profile unworthy of its actual risk to us and the environment.
And the letter authors show much of the usual economic cluelessness in this area with a simultaneous demand for reduction in consumption, notably the conservation and recycling of materials which they consider important to alleviating poverty, combined with demands for reduced wealth inequality, and social and economic improvement. It doesn't make sense, for example, to waste very scarce resources, like human time, to preserve very plentiful resources like glass or paper (to give a common nonsensical trade off of many recycling programs).
They consider wealth inequality to be of importance. It is such a dubious measure, that I don't see a rational point to it. Most of humanity doesn't even try to accumulate wealth, the richest societies have lots of people who nominally have negative wealth (more debt than assets) to the extent that a person with no assets or debts is wealthier than the cumulative wealth of the poorest 30% of the world (which indicates that wealth measures are missing a really important piece - the future net earning potential of a person), and of the richest, their wealth is based on dubious valuations from illiquid markets. But it's real convenient to claim as a problem since it isn't likely to ever get much better in the long term due to the huge disparities in desire for and competence in growing wealth.
In summary, there are legitimate problems mentioned, but we see the usual myopia that is common to this subject with only slight acknowledgement of what gets done right and why, and an inordinate amount of attention paid to climate change, wealth inequality, and other popular bugbears.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:04PM (3 children)
it's only myopia if you can't see it all comes down to how world-wide capitalism has fucked up the planet through bombing and genocide.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:26PM (2 children)
That's the myopia right there. First, there isn't that much bombing and genocides. I believe capitalism has played a significant role what has made the world a more peaceful place since the end of the Second World War.
Second, while I grant that some bombing is due to capitalism-oriented forces, who's doing these genocides again? The last big one was in Rwanda almost 20 years ago. It involved a larger, more powerful tribe (Hutu) killing a weaker one (Tutsi). No capitalism required. Syria is the current leader in genocide with ISIS in particular doing in various ethnic groups in Syria and Iraq. That wasn't due to capitalism either.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:52PM (1 child)
They just lost their last city. Stragglers may still exist.
You don't hear about it because the media doesn't want to make Trump look good. ISIS grew rapidly under Obama, then got wiped out by just one year of Trump. The whole story has been buried, despite being kind of major. ISIS was big news... and now it's gone.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:21PM
Even if it does end, there's considerable potential for a new group to fill the niche. The dynamics that created ISIS still exist.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:45PM (37 children)
Ah! Klassic khallow! is this an oblivious rebuttal, or, just, like, your opinion, man? https://www.awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploads/thats-just-like-your-opinion-man.gif [awesomegifs.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:00PM (36 children)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:34PM (27 children)
Rebutting your rebuttals:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/nature/see-how-pacific-islanders-are-living-with-climate-change.aspx [nationalgeographic.com.au]
https://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm [skepticalscience.com]
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/hurricane-harvey-climate-change-global-warming-weather/ [nationalgeographic.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:06PM (19 children)
The second link is to a story that notes that there is no correlation so far between global warming and tropical cyclones, and then cherry picks a region which has an increase in frequency of storms over the past few decades.
And the third story is about the feeling that hurricanes probably have been made worse to some unknown degree by global warming with bonus handwaving by Kevin Trenberth and a scientist with the traditional untested computer models of huricane strength derived from more untested computer models of climate change.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:56PM (18 children)
Still have to power of an example as to what may happen to other latter.
This means you cannot claim now there's no effect whatsoever, you'll need at least to retreat into the effects are insignificant so far
Feel free to contribute to the "peer-review" process on the site. Until then, you words vs their words, I feel they have more credibility than you - especially since you didn't contribute anything but your opinion of "their content is just an opinion".
Be as it may, it's a feeling of a respected institution in American cultural space.
Again, putting it into the balance with the feeling** of your yet-to-be-named mothership [soylentnews.org]... I'd rather feel like National Geographic
(grin)
---
** 'cause I didn't see from your side anything that would qualify as "more than a feeling"; even more, what I heard is far lower than
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:13PM (17 children)
Keep in mind my original statement:
Moving on:
Not going to waste my time. Imagine if I could insert my rebuttals into your replies on SN directly (and otherwise edit your posts as I see fit), but you couldn't do the same to me. That's the games played with "peer-review" on that site.
So what? You are evaluating them on a non-scientific basis. Evidence should be what matters, not the credibility of their cherry picked evidence.
Again so what? I'd rather have the soothing feel of evidence against my warty skin.
Not seeing the reason to care about your feelz.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:34PM (16 children)
Since your initial claim** is not sustained by anything that was presented here (in spite of your duty to do so), so I'll consider as your "personal feeling".
To which feeling I reciprocated.
Shared feeling.
And because it was you that that made the first claim**, I'd expect to be you to present the evidence first.
Until then, I'm free to wonder in the hypotheses or argument space as... well... as it pleases me.
---
** the "Once again, climate change is elevated to a profile unworthy of its actual risk to us and the environment." claim. A claim supported by...?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @12:53AM (15 children)
Of course. I present the lack of evidence as evidence. After all, if there really was undeniable evidence for near future substantial harm from global warming, they would have presented that and we wouldn't be playing these games. Your move.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:30AM (14 children)
At the very best "the lack of evidence shall not be accepted as a proof for the lack" is applicable.
"There's no teapot orbiting Sun" is as unfalsifiable as its negated. Even in the context of accepting this as the premise
Of course, the things change for people actually doing research - their can propose and study and improve models.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:01AM (13 children)
You're not even trying. I'm not "proving" that. It is merely supporting evidence for my position. We have extraordinary resources thrown at climate change study. Yet they can't come up with smoking gun evidence of the supposed high priority risk of global warming.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:15AM (12 children)
As you aren't proving anything, what's the "I'm sciency you're not" position?
You are presenting assertion, I'm free to ignore them.
I'm presenting assertions you are free to ignore them.
Case closed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:28AM (11 children)
You just made it. Before, you at least tried to make an argument. Now, it's just assertions? No scientific content. That wastes both our time and I put some value on my time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:18AM (1 child)
The amount of it you waste in pointless bad faith arguing here belies the claim, khallow. Once again you have met up with someone with logic and facts on their side, and you have lost. And yet you persist. Are you a Confederate, khallow? That what was wrong with those boys, they just didn't know when they was whooped.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24 2017, @07:31AM
Translation: mothership doesn't pay for posts revealing that everything khallow spews on S/N are assertions (bullshit in vulgar terms). It requires a modicum of sophistication, just enough to ring as a proper argument.
Repetition, such as "cherry pick" accusations, or character assassination may likely carry a bonus - I can't see any other reason khallow doesn't get bored with them. Or perhaps those are his latest lines of retreat.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:53AM (8 children)
I made my arguments and you rejected them - it's clear that you won't be convinced by a sum of articles that are peer-reviewed. Nor are you willing to peer-review them and possible contribute with corrections or alternatives. A thing is also crystal-clear: you assert you know better than them.
Since I admit I cannot be better than them (be it only because of my time/commitments constraints), it follows that I won't be able to make you accept their findings/statistics/models.
So I asked you to present your arguments for 'we have nothing that we know and should scare us, ergo there's evidence (but not proof) we have nothing at all to be scared about'. Which I said that, in the best case, it's an argument that leads nowhere, as it defines the issue as undecidable by itself alone.
Nothing else coming from you, let's draw the line and make the sum(mary):
- I presented my examples and arguments, and wasn't willing to defend them, thus my arguments are no better than assertions;
- you presented your statement and chose a line of argumentation which is not able to resolve the issue - your statement is no better than an assertion.
And that's all there is. As anticlimactic as it may be, staying on the same lines is not going to add anything different... so why your surprise? You think my time is not valuable to me or what?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:49PM (7 children)
And what is wrong with that? These examples show the variety of problems that come with the research, such as the too common combination of observation and confirmation bias where one assumes that because one sees something recorded for the first time, that it happened for the first time. The first example was a case of that, assuming that the problems of living on small islands are noticeably affected by the modest sea rise to date, mostly because no one had scientifically recorded the rigors of living on such islands in the past.
There's also the fact that sea level has been rising for the past 20k or so years. The rate has slowed dramatically over the past 8k years, but it's still consistently around half a meter [wikipedia.org] per 1000 years, which over the time frames of climate change is still a significant amount of sea level rise (about a third of the total amount of sea level rise).
The second article demonstrated the dangers of cherry picking data.
And the last article demonstrated the common tactic of extrapolating estimates of harm via computer models from untested computer models of climate. It has some moderate usefulness, but we see this way too frequently. In particular, it is absurd to base global social and economic policy on such things. There are immense sums being devoted to climatology, they can do better than this.
Sure, it's too bad that you feel the outcome was wrong, but this is always going to be the problem with poor research, which is what is flooding climatology over the past few decades.
No, that is incorrect. The issue is quite decidable. My view here is that one should provide evidence of the threat, then we can respond to it. That just hasn't been done to an adequate level with global warming. Not just by many people like you who are firmly convinced of the harm, but can't point to anything concrete, but also the various bodies who are responsible for presenting such information.
For example, the IPCC has consistently exaggerated the extent and risks of global warming. For their latest example [soylentnews.org], they backtrack on their estimates of the most important parameter in climatology the long term temperature sensitivity of a doubling of CO2 while simultaneous deciding, without supporting evidence, that a very low threshold, a temperature increase of 1.5 C since the beginning of the Industrial Age, is the absolute maximum of warming we should tolerate. Why not tolerate 4 C of increase (an example I consider)? That buys up to two centuries of action at current rates of temperature increase under the temperature sensitivities of the new research, which is at the very bottom of the new estimates of temperature sensitivity given by the IPCC.
That brings up the next problem. Projected climate change is way out of joint with existing climate change, with past models of climate change already consistently diverging [soylentnews.org] substantially to the warm side from real world observations (note in particular my later observation that the "random internal variability" excuse used in the story only appears in the future of these models, not the past, when statistically, it should appear in both). Why should I expect that climate will correct to fit the climate models rather than the present levels of divergence increasing in the future?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:58PM (5 children)
Nothing wrong with that. My summary made no value judgement on what happened, just the explanation about my reaction.
Non decidable in the logical sense. By itself, your argument didn't offer any support for determining the truth value of your statement.
Other arguments/data/approaches need to be added.
And all your arguments in your new post lead into the same: we don't know how climate change is going to affect us. There's no clear demonstration of a necessity on both extremes of the reaction (we can afford to do nothing versus we must do everything to scrub all the CO2 in the atmosfere) or at any level of reaction in between.
For the sake of argumentation, if I am to take this as correct, where does it lead? Well, the answer is: the entire range of possible reactions are equally justifiable on available data, the only question is willingness and affordability of "experimenting" further within this "lab" we call Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:22AM (4 children)
And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:33AM (3 children)
Rather than grinding, let's go meta.
It's clear we (the humanity) are playing a game with incomplete info: a highly chaotic system, with a large uber of dimensions involved, too little predictive power in the models, too little information about the present, too little and unreliable info of the past. Even worse, there isn't any chance to run multiple experiment in a controlled ... ummm... environment (the experimental side is reduced to observational).
The worst, we don't even know the stake of the game, but we can accept that the entire range from benign to human species wipeout is possible.
So, what support for decisions do you see under the circumstances?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @09:37AM (2 children)
I disagree. We know the stakes haven't been much through to the present (aside from a massive consumption of public funds on a variety of impractical projects and spending) and that various parties which are supposed to be unbiased, like climate researchers or government regulators, have been selling climate change very hard despite the lack of evidence for the harm that climate change is supposed to cause.
Meanwhile the people predicting wipeout from global warming are loons who can't be bothered to collect a shred of evidence to back their noise.
Argument from ignorance is just another fallacy.
Wait and see is what I see happening. While there are a few true believers elsewhere, catastrophic AGW really is a developed world ideology. Ultimately, the developing world (which may well dominate the global economy in the latter half of the 21st century) is going along with the feelgood only because someone else pays for it.
My prediction is that we'll find that the IPCC and various publicly funded research efforts have exaggerated both the degree and the harm of global warming when climate models continue to diverge from reality and people can address what harm there is by moving uphill once every 50 years or so or changing up the crops grown in farms every so often.
Finally, I tire of the people who are deeply cynical about economic matters, yet become total rubes when it comes to environmental matters. Money and power are still involved. The problems spurred by money and power still happen. The only thing that has changed is that they like the story better.
Given the many problems with climate research of the present, I see no reason for urgent action. Instead, it is time to wait. If matters really are as dire as claimed, we will see the results in the next few decades. If they aren't, which is what I expect, we will see that as well.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 23 2017, @11:02AM (1 child)
Me too. With your arguments.
You mean, besides those Pacific islanders I mentioned, right?
And you can't honestly say '100% it's a fluke, the things are going to stop there'.
I admit I cannot say for sure it will go much worse, but based on what I know I estimate the chances to go much worse as far from trivial.
Remember that I asked you about the support for the decision?
What I heard from you was 'here's my suggestion for decision and in support of it I say that the one thinking it can get to the worst are loonies'.
Doesn't sounds a rational support for decision.
I'll let aside your disregard for fate of people that don't have where to move and just say I'm afraid that won't be that simple.
Qualitative argument: the Earth is a chaotic system, far from a quasi-static equilibrium. It doesn't warn and cool in a uniform fashion, a little bit all over the place and gradual - it does go through time periods and geo area in which the energy just happens to concentrate and is release suddenly - e.g. hurricane/typhoon seasons and affected areas. With more energy into the atmosphere, the prediction of more frequent and higher amplitude of such events sound reasonable to my ear - yes, based on my education (graduate in Physics) I do buy this argument.
Heh, that's me. Sorry about that, but I'm old enough to offer you too slim chances that I'll ever change - took me more than half a century to get here and I'm feeling comfortable in my economic-cynical skin. If it's of any consolation to you, I have little to financially win or lose being environmental/sustainability biased, not a cent from your pocket enters mine.
On my side, I'm quite amused (now, at this age, we aren;t talking about 10-15 years ago)... where was I?... ah, yes, quite amused of those how believe economy is something vital to do at peak efficiency and with the purpose of accumulating... what... money?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @04:47PM
Them too. How much has global warming made their situation worse? And why should we harm the well being of seven billion people (climate change mitigation is notoriously harmful such as corn ethanol subsidies in the US increasing the cost of food globally, doubling of electricity costs in Germany and Denmark, and multiple market failures in carbon emission markets in Europe), just because a few people on some islands have somewhat more severe problems of the sort they would have anyway?
Qualitative argument for what? Particularly given that the higher frequency and "amplitude" hasn't been observed except by cherry picking regions?
A href="https://soylentnews.org/~khallow/journal/2754">My view on that. One of the key pieces of evidence I discuss is the observation that most of humanity has substantial increased income adjusted for inflation (as in a strong indication via deciles that two thirds of human has over the two decades ending in 2008, seen at least a 30% increase in their income) and the worst sort of poverty has declined in absolute value by a factor of three (from about two thirds of humanity in 1970 to one tenth today). That's due purely to the global economy. So one of the many side effects of the fossil fuel-based economy is that we're accumulating people who aren't starving and are better off. This is the best improvement in the human condition ever.
Well, the short-sighted obsession with climate change threatens that. The solutions harm the golden goose while making insignificant progress towards mitigation goals. And by making more people poorer globally, mitigation strategies may even in the long run make the problem worse just because poorer people have higher fertility rates. What's the point of creating long term population, economic, and environmental problems just to protect people who can simply move somewhere else (perhaps even just a few dozen yards somewhere else) over the course of their lives?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:00PM
And my apologies, I'm running out of my spare time budget for now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:32AM (6 children)
Ok, I can't let this slide. You're citing John Cook's web site as an authority on CAGW. I hope you are ignorant of the scandal in which he and his cohorts unethically cooked (ha) data and decided in advance what the conclusion of their paper would be. Because if you know about his complete lack of integrity and still cite him, you thereby destroy your own integrity. Whereas, if you are merely ignorant, you merely demonstrate that you haven't bothered to do sufficient research, yet cling stubbornly to your beliefs and defend them with caustic zeal.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:01AM (5 children)
Oh, do enlighten me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:06PM
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Monday November 27 2017, @12:00PM (3 children)
Oh, do your own homework.
If you care so much about the world, you should care enough to do the most basic search on Google for the works you cite. If you're unwilling to do that, then you are willfully ignorant and not serious at all. Ironically, this is one of the chief memes used by alarmists, that their opponents are merely ignorant, or willfully so. Amazing how often the opposite is the case.
Or you can just read khallow's comment, in which he does the work for you.
But maybe you already know about it and are just pushing lies to advance your agenda. Not big surprise, if so.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 28 2017, @01:30AM (2 children)
I'm willing to do my homework, not willing to do yours.
Your claim, your duty to support it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Wednesday November 29 2017, @03:19AM (1 child)
False. You cited Cook's article, so it's your job to verify its veracity. If you neglect to do so, you are guilty of willful ignorance. Now that you have been informed of its falsity, you are additionally guilty of spreading false information.
We're not even talking about reading Cook's article--we're talking about doing a Google search!
But you're obviously fine with lying. The ends justify the means, right? You'd cite a thousand Cooks if you could.
Filthy liar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @06:06AM
After spewing all this shit, be civilized and use that toilet paper to wipe you mouth, will you?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:05PM (7 children)
Yes, it is very hard to test models on the future, since the future does not exist and so provides no data. What you are saying makes no sense, khallow. Are you just being cranky again? Once the future collapses into the present, and solidifies into the past, we do have data that can confirm what the model projected for the once future past. Is your difficulty temporal, or ideological?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:19PM
Both: ideological insanity due to temporal lobe dysfunction :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:00AM (5 children)
The obvious rebuttal is that we can run the clock and merely wait for a while. Then the nonexistent future becomes a well defined past that we can observe yet not a well defined past that a climate model can anticipate a priori without having the desired explicative power.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday November 22 2017, @06:22AM (4 children)
I love it when you talk dirty, khallow, but could you explain exactly what you were trying to say in this sentence? You know well that predictive power and explicative power are quite separate and potentially at odds. And I do not think you know what "a priori" actually means. Still got that dictionary you keep bragging about?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:59PM (3 children)
Ok, predictive power then.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:20AM (2 children)
And of course you know, further, my dear scientific khallow, that while correlation does grant probability and predictive power (though, really, no one knows why other than the statistical correlation) it does not give any explicatory, or expanatory force. So what are you saying, khallow? Fool me once, and that is chance, but fool me twice, and that is science in action. I think it is best to turn around, and ask, who is being the fool here? The Data, or the Climate Denier?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:49AM (1 child)
Except when it does. No point to this, aristarchus.
I don't agree that you are thinking. "The Data" and "the Climate Denier" are ill-defined (and by the usual meaning, "data" can't have a property associated with sentience, foolishness, further indicating the ill-defined and ill-thought nature of these questions). At this point, neither are worth asking metaphorical questions over. One should show first that climate change is such a problem that it needs to be dealt with now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 23 2017, @03:19PM
watch it dude - he talks sweet to all his little boys as he prepares to penetrate them