SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the I-don't-want-knowledge-I-want-certainty dept.
Jeremy P. Shapiro, a professor of psychology at Case Western Reserve University, has an article on The Conversation about one of the main cognitive errors at the root of science denial: dichotomous thinking, where entire spectra of possibilities are turned into dichotomies, and the division is usually highly skewed. Either something is perfect or it is a complete failure, either we have perfect knowledge of something or we know nothing.
Currently, there are three important issues on which there is scientific consensus but controversy among laypeople: climate change, biological evolution and childhood vaccination. On all three issues, prominent members of the Trump administration, including the president, have lined up against the conclusions of research.
This widespread rejection of scientific findings presents a perplexing puzzle to those of us who value an evidence-based approach to knowledge and policy.
Yet many science deniers do cite empirical evidence. The problem is that they do so in invalid, misleading ways. Psychological research illuminates these ways.
[...] In my view, science deniers misapply the concept of “proof.”
Proof exists in mathematics and logic but not in science. Research builds knowledge in progressive increments. As empirical evidence accumulates, there are more and more accurate approximations of ultimate truth but no final end point to the process. Deniers exploit the distinction between proof and compelling evidence by categorizing empirically well-supported ideas as “unproven.” Such statements are technically correct but extremely misleading, because there are no proven ideas in science, and evidence-based ideas are the best guides for action we have.
I have observed deniers use a three-step strategy to mislead the scientifically unsophisticated. First, they cite areas of uncertainty or controversy, no matter how minor, within the body of research that invalidates their desired course of action. Second, they categorize the overall scientific status of that body of research as uncertain and controversial. Finally, deniers advocate proceeding as if the research did not exist.
Dr. David "Orac" Gorski has further commentary on the article. Basically, science denialism works by exploiting the very human need for absolute certainty, which science can never truly provide.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 14 2019, @12:50AM (65 children)
There is an entire spectrum of subtleties among those of us who question the "consensus". Just look up the number of people who have made preposterous claims, such as, "We've only got ten years!" If you can't understand why those kooks are rejected out of hand, there is really nothing to discuss. Your brain is cleanly washed, and more rational people aren't going to waste time debating with you.
Global warming is real. We've gone over the fact that 20,000 years ago, the ice sheets extended down as far as New York City. The globe is warming, no one denies that. It's the time scale that is in question.
Man pollutes the planet. We have poisoned vast tracts of ocean and land. You have to be brain dead not to see that, or at least to believe the facts if you haven't seen it up close and personal.
There are too many people on the planet. That one is more open to debate than the first two, but I insist there are too many billions of us.
Fossil fuels ain't good. Anyone who argues against that idea needs to sniff some tail pipes to find enlightenment.
But, a lot of us can't believe the bullshit that the earth will end in ten years, or that the irrevocable turning point is ten years away, or whatever version of the ten year threat is in vogue.
Climate change is a political football. No matter how real or how unreal the threat is, the football game is what really matters here. The game keeps the naive, the gullible, and the ignorant keyed up, demanding action. Wake up and smell the coffee - we are taking action. Within my adult lifetime, we have largely solved the acid rain problem. Low sulfur diesel fuel went far toward solving that one.
The doomsayers really need to look over US history over the past 200 years, to understand how much we have advanced from the really dirty days. I've related the story of Penn Power's coal plant on the Beaver River, in Lawrence County, Pa. The black column of smoke and soot visible from miles away is gone. It has been gone for almost 40 years now. Today, you have to be within a mile to see a few puffs of steam come from the stacks now and then.
Put things is perspective, is all that some of us ask.
No, the world isn't ending in two years, or six, or ten, or even 100 years. Just stop the bullshit if you want to be taken seriously.
(Score: 3, Informative) by corey on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:07AM (23 children)
I agreed with the first half of your comment.
But then you are arguing a point with unrelated evidence. Acid rain has nothing to do with global warming. Neither does black smoke near your house.
The problem is the huge amount, and increasing, of greenhouse gases humans are ejecting into the atmosphere. Please show us evidence we have solved that on a global scale.
Secondly, global warming is not a political football, how to respond to it is. Thirdly, those advocating action are not doomsayers, they're not saying everyone will die. Looking after our planet and or own future is smart, admirable, positive.
I haven't yet read TFA, but intend to, but I think your strategy is in line with what the guy is saying about deniers.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:14AM (19 children)
Don't bother, the article provides less meaningful material than your 5 line post.
And I don't agree with the first half of his post, because while "we've got 10 years" incorrectly describes whether the oceans will raise 100 meters in that time, it very correctly describes some serious and rigorous analyses of when(at the current rate of increase in global emissions) clathrate acceleration will become self-sustaining and impossible to reverse. To be honest, those particular analyses mean we're doomed even if we handed over the keys to the most radical of greens, because it takes 10+ years to convert an economy to more sustainable energy sources.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:26AM (18 children)
You kinda missed one of my points. Climate change is already self sustaining and irreversible.
Can you replace the mile of ice that sat on top of what is now Moraine State Park, in Pennsylvania? No? Then, climate change is irreversible.
You can't take a screenshot of a video game, and say that particular moment defines the game, can you? Then you can't take a brief couple hundred years of sweet climate, and state "This is how climate should be - MUST BE!"
The earth is warming, and climate changes. Let's get used to it, and deal with it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:10AM
No I didn't, I just didn't care because it's among a wide array of things you've said with confidence and have no bearing on reality.
We know today what rates of natural hydrate emissions are at least within an order of magnitude, and they are not yet nearly approaching human emissions in scale. Check back with me on the whole "we're already locked in" schtick on our first blue ocean event.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by vux984 on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:16AM (9 children)
Ice ages are cyclic, but long period. We can 'get used to and deal with' most climate change that happens over 1000s of thousands of years.
What people are worried about now is an unnatural rate of change. We cannot deal with 1000 years worth of "natural climate change" unnaturally taking place every 10.
The other concern is that the ice age cycles still happen within certain ranges. What people are worried about here is that we are pushing outside those ranges to levels never seen before. Suppose we tip the scales into a runaway change which will not cycle back. Think ... Venus.
You are right that its a mistake to equate the fact that things are a little warmer or colder or simply different than they were 100 years ago in some place with a problem that needs massive human intervention to 'fix'. Some climate change is natural, and inevitable. Do you really believe climate scientists do not understand this?
Sure many ignorant common people on the climate change panic side can't tell the difference; and just think it should be 1995 forever or something. And they present useful idiots for the deniers to latch onto.
But the actual scientists, and the actual body of science that's been gathered here -- surely you don't think they're that clueless? They're accounting for that. They're seeing rates of change that aren't part of any natural cycle. They are seeing atmospheric compositions that haven't occurred in all the time humans have been around that are attributable to human activity. To think that because some ignorant folks think it can or should be 1995 forever that the whole body of science can be disregarded -- That just speaks to the 'deniers' side's own catastrophic wilful ignorance.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:28AM (6 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum [wikipedia.org]
Why it is the people screaming the loudest of the "horrors of climate change" are always the most ignorant in every related science field?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 14 2019, @05:28AM (4 children)
Seeing that you are somewhat informed (in contrast with the most ignorant), would you be so kind to tell how many humans where during that time?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:00AM (3 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Eocene_primates [wikipedia.org]
Dude, are you really arguing that your own species are stupider than THAT???
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:53AM (2 children)
I asked a question, you provided an answer (that gained your post a +Informative mod from me).
I think, dude, it's not very wise to waste of time/energy making assumptions beyond the face value of a textual comments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @07:04AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian [wikipedia.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @07:10AM
Not the above AC, but just wanted to thank you for your response. If more people acted like you we wouldn't be in the absurdity we're in today. Obviously this does not apply to you but a pattern that repeats over and over today is:
1) Somebody states a position.
2) Somebody asks a question. The question is intended to be rhetorical as it implies a refutation to #1.
3) It turns out the question was not rhetorical and has an answer that contradicts the implication of #2.
4) #2 disregards the new information and shifts the goal posts. Goto #2
I generally expect this pattern much more when somebody asks a question on a 'hot topic' as opposed to somebody genuinely asking a question.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Thursday November 14 2019, @05:14PM
I'm not sure why you linked it paired with a shrill rant about ignorant people screaming?
Its a useful case study; and affirms a lot of what scientists believe will happen. (acidification of the oceans, temperature rises, etc). While mammals thrived, the deep ocean suffered a mass extinction.
But that peak still took over 20,000 years to form, rose the temperature 5-8 degrees over that time, and then lasted 200,000. And it had a very dramatic impact on the earth's biosphere.
Today carbon is released into the air at more than 10x the rate it was being added at its peak during the onset of that event, and it's currently still accelerating.
Geologically that was pretty quick, but its a slow burning candle compared to what's happening right now.
So what was your point exactly?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:28AM (1 child)
Never seen before is, so far, an overstatement. Not seen since sometime before the dinosaur killer asteroid would, I think, be accurate, but I'd need to check.
Also, there have recently been claims that it might end up killing off humanity. I didn't check who the claims were by, since I really doubt that we'd let global warming get that bad without doing something like setting off a nuclear war that would probably cool things down...and probably end civilization, though not humanity, for good.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:24PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum [wikipedia.org] is estimated at about 10 million years after the dinosaur killer. While happening much slower the current change, it was still fairly quick and created lots of change.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:32AM (3 children)
lul
you are the epitome of someone just smart enough to have a clue yet too egotistical to know when you've exceeded your abilities
probably grew up and stayed in a smallish town where education is mocked and good ol' gut instinct is treated as sacrosanct, thus you never learned humility because no one ever put you in your place and now you're too old
(Score: 0, Troll) by Sally_G on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:06AM (2 children)
You start out right - I grew up in a small town of about 50,000. You're batting average needs to improve if you want to play with the big boys. My "place" is wherever the hell I decide it is, and it would take a small army of your type to change that. Ooops, my error. Make that a large army.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @08:02AM
Ah, so you're Runaway's troll account? Can't say I'm surprised, but you might want to pay better attention to your login :P
I knew this site was infested with trolls and shills, but still sad to have it proven. Doubly sad to see you so overwhelmed by a simple phrase which an emotionally stable person would realize was just a call for more humility. Your reaction just nails the point home and shows how you misconstrue intentions so drastically based on the persecution complex fed by extreme rightwing propaganda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @08:03AM
Well, shit! I grew up in a town of 24, including dogs and chickens, and when on to complete a doctorate. Of course, there were some stupid people in my hometown, and a couple of really dumb hounddogs, not to mention the mindless Trump-supporting Chickens. Mostly, the Chickens were in favor of the China embargos and tariffs. They had no sympathy for ducks.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:17PM (2 children)
Hell no. Already underway? Definitely. Self-sustaining? Probably. Irreversible? No way. We have already altered the climate once by accident, we could do it again deliberately, in the opposite direction, if we so desired.
I predict that if our industrial / technological society survives the next hundred years, we will end up with technologies, tools and methods in place to control the Earth's climate like a domestic thermostat. In fact I believe this is what we should be working towards.
With solar shades and mirrors and fine control over atmospheric composition and whatever other awesome new technology the next century brings, we could pick and choose what sort of climate conditions we want and where and for how long, to best suit the needs of the human race and all other residents of the planet. All we need is cool science and political will, and I believe the upcoming generations will have those in spades.
We will also have to abandon any deference to the Gaian notion of nature. This new, managed world will not be "natural", Gaia will have to be managed and stewarded, but that doesn't mean we can't respect wildlife and wilderness. It just means that it will have to exist on our terms, in whatever space we choose to give it. Which, if we're honest, is pretty much how things are already, it's just that we do it now without the application any kind of strategy, wisdom or benevolence. Let's just hope our great great grandchildren can be more responsible with this power than we have been.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:32PM (1 child)
Five thumbs up, for thinking outside the box. Shades and mirrors - in one discussion or another, we've touched on them. I like the idea.
But, realistically, how far away is a working model? And then, a full deployment?
And, I gotta jab at those who nay-say the Wall. If we can't build a little wall along our southern border, how are we going to build a huge project of shades and mirrors? That huge sunshade will be a more challenging project than a silly little wall extending a couple thousand miles!!
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:56PM
It's not that we can't "build that wall", it's the question of whether we should. How effective would it be? What is the cost of making one that is effective? Is the cost of having an effective wall going to offset the cost of not having a wall?
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 3, Touché) by deimtee on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:30AM (2 children)
It absolutely does. The same sulfur particles that cause acid rain result in cooling the atmosphere. Cleaning up the acid exacerbates the apparent warming trend.
Show evidence that it is problem first. On geological timescales CO2 levels are extremely low. At less than 180ppm all plants die. Before industry started adding CO2 it was not far from that point.
Yes they are. https://www.dailywire.com/news/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-were-all-going-die-emily-zanotti [dailywire.com]
Yes. Cleaning up pollution, moving to solar/wind/nuclear, electric vehicles, are all good things. Starving all the plants might not be.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:48AM (1 child)
the sulfur particles that get into the stratosphere from volcanic eruptions do indeed help lower atmospheric temperatures. the Mt Pinatubo eruption demonstrated this quite well. The sulfur and NO2 that get into the lower atmosphere from carbon fuel consumption? Not so much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @12:26PM
The volcano emits a huge, brief pulse of sulfur, so the effect is easily measured and obvious to laymen.
Industrial sulfur emissions have ALSO been measured and been found to affect temperature.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:07AM (22 children)
Any climate scientists made that claim? I can't find any.
In fact I can't find a single claim that goes beyond:
The climate is changing, probably because of the activities of man.
Life is going to be harder for many people because of the climate changing.
Millions (or billions) of people are going to have to live somewhere else because of climate change.
Humanity ought to change the way we do things to prevent it getting really bad.
If anyone is telling you the world is going to end in 10 years, you might be talking to a Jehovah's Witness.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:29AM (19 children)
Do an internet search using the terms "climate change only ten years".
As I said, climate change is a political football. Unless the scientists step up to the plate, and denounce the politicians, then they are giving their tacit approval to the idiots. But, that won't happen, because the money for more climate change research comes from the idiots.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:32AM (3 children)
There are still ethical scientists who don't take the money. The reason they don't actively denounce the politicians is pretty much the same reason people didn't denounce the spanish inquisition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:40AM (2 children)
So, after all these years, you still refuse to denounce the inquisition?
(Score: 3, Funny) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:01AM (1 child)
It's not relevant any more, nobody expects the Spanish inquisition.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @05:48AM
Nobody expects the SJW inquisition, either.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:59AM (1 child)
OK, I did, and I'm still not seeing it.
I found several pieces about how if we don't reduce our output of climate changing gasses soon, then the climate will change more dramatically and quickly, but that seems to me to be logical, if you accept that greenhouse gasses cause climate change.
Because you seem to have decided climate change is not really real, in a way that works for you, you seem to have proved Jeremy P. Shapiro's case.
Plenty of people use your arguments to dispute evolution too by the way.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:25AM
The people dealing with the real effects have bypassed any discussion of climate change, they're focusing now on the things that people can see locally: flooding, it's real, it's observable, and it's not getting any better.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:29PM (12 children)
Challenge accepted!
... [5 minutes of googling] ...
Reading comprehension fail. Nobody is saying that (your words) "the world will end in ten years". They are saying we have (about) ten years to take decisive action. Big difference.
Imagine you are driving and a truck ahead of you jackknifes, flips and bursts into flames, completely blocking the road. It's still a hundred metres away, but you are travelling at highway speeds. It might take you 4 or 5 seconds to reach the accident. However that doesn't mean you have 4 or 5 seconds to start braking. Do you want to hit that flaming wreck at 60mph or 6mph?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:43PM (10 children)
Try this link, or any number of other links addressing the same speeches by the same person - https://www.theamericanmirror.com/ocasio-cortez-people-are-going-to-die-from-climate-change/ [theamericanmirror.com]
She isn't the only person who tries to push that "urgency". Nor is she the worst of the alarmists.
Tangentially - your analogy reminds me that I've promised myself to rewrite a true story that I no longer have access to. Fiery wrecks. Guess I'll stop browsing here, open a text editor, and get a few sentences down, anyway. Once the writing starts, it usually just flows . . .
(Score: 3, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:58PM (3 children)
I just opened your link. Despite the authors desperate attempts to make it look otherwise, Ms Ocasio-Cortez was saying exactly what I just said: We have to take action IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS to mitigate a massive crisis DECADES INTO THE FUTURE.
That said, climate change IS killing people right now. Floods, wildfires, mudslides... It's happening already, and it's going to get worse.
We are accelerating towards that burning truck going "oh hey, I haven't done any braking in the last 3 seconds and I'm not on fire, therefore it must all just be hysteria. That unusual fiery heat I can feel on my face must just be unseasonal weather."
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:02PM (2 children)
And, my position is more like, that fiery wreck is still three miles ahead. Something needs to be done soon, but there is time. Every single headline that indicates less fossil fuels are being used somewhere in the world, is good news. And, every headline that fewer pollutants are being dumped into the biosphere is good news. That whole globalization thing was a series of bad news, but the good news keeps on coming all the same. China, the worst offender in the globalization thing, has reached it's peak polluting phase, and is beginning to clean up it's act. Good news.
The alarmists all need to calm down. There's bad stuff in the road ahead, but we'll get around it. Among other headlines, we recently saw one where they can extract carbon from the air, to produce fuel. We can burn all of that kind of stuff, for a net increase of zero carbon. We can use solar forever, with a net increase of zero carbon. Ditto with wind power. Humans are making progress. No, we're not three seconds from impact with that fiery wreck. There is reason for concern, but not for alarm.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 15 2019, @07:07PM (1 child)
Well, at least you're coming around to reality even though you are kicking and screaming the whole way. Hopefully you morons haven't delayed us to the point of inevitable ecological collapse. Technological solutions can do a lot, but they can't fix everything if it gets bad enough.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17 2019, @10:04AM
Much like XML, you just need to use more.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday November 15 2019, @02:02AM (5 children)
Jesus that link is shit.
Anyone using the term "socialist" as a pejorative, especially in the United States is, is telling you lies.
The article also quotes some of her tweets, which includes things like this:
which in the saner parts of the world is considered common sense.
I get it. Your team likes to "own the libs" and all that, but don't confuse any of it with science.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 16 2019, @07:29AM (4 children)
Not necessarily. It's quite likely that anyone using "socialist" as a pejorative just knows its history better than you. I mean it has lead to more death than any ideology in human history.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday November 17 2019, @07:20PM (3 children)
Socialism hasn't led to the deaths of millions, despite the propaganda you Americans live with.
Go on now, cite the USSR and China. Let's pretend socialism had anything to do with their various purges.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 18 2019, @02:26AM (2 children)
Yeah, I knew someone would No True Scottsman that. Pretty much every last government that has paid lip service to socialism has turned out the same way, so, yeah, that is socialism.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 18 2019, @02:49AM (1 child)
Oh yeah, like almost all of Western Europe over the last 70 years or so, and Scandinavia.
Who knows what Latin America would be like under socialism if you gringos didn't keep sending murder squads to kill anyone who tried to get out of slavery?
But sure, socialism's the problem.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 18 2019, @03:31AM
Western Europe are very much still capitalists, they're just shitty at it. Scandinavia? They're funding their shit with oil money like good capitalists rather than Other People's Money like socialists at the moment. Greening up the planet will do to them what running out of Other People's money did for every other socialist state, it's just a matter of time.
I've got a pretty good idea it would look something like Venezuela did prior to socialism. You know, doing okay and having stuff on the shelves in the stores.
So, yeah, socialism's the problem and you have not one successful national example to point to otherwise.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 15 2019, @01:34AM
The world will end in ten years!
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:43AM (1 child)
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez_the_world_is_going_to_end_in_12_years_if_we_dont_address_climate_change.html [realclearpolitics.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:04AM
She is not a climate scientist.
She does have something to sell though. If you're not buying it plenty of people are.
(Score: 5, Touché) by c0lo on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:38AM
This is the very reason I stopped debating with you Runaway: most of the time is, as you say, a waste of time and, in the rare occasions you say something true, there's nothing to debate.
You know? In the general case, yes, Jeremy P. Shapiro is right. With you, though, there's only "black" and "white", "grey" doesn't happen - maybe it's a sign that your brain is totally washed of grey matter?
(very large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:44AM (9 children)
The acid rain problem was mitigated because something was done to mitigate it.
The hole in the ozone layer problem was mitigated because something was done to mitigate it.
But with climate change, people like you are advocating that nothing be done about it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 14 2019, @01:49AM (8 children)
Alright, let's DO SOMETHING!! You run around in circles, screaming "THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!" I'll pop some popcorn, and open a long neck, and watch.
(Score: 4, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:07AM (4 children)
Because those are the only two possibilities, I suppose.
(Score: 4, Touché) by MostCynical on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:27AM (2 children)
From TFS: "where entire spectra of possibilities are turned into dichotomies"
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:40AM (1 child)
Oh yes.
I forgot that bit. Looks like Dr. Shapiro was right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:14AM
And Runaway is extraordinarily stupid. But, we knew that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:41AM
Ok, you run around in triangles screaming "walla walla bing bang"
I'll have some crisps and a nice merlot cos I don't like popcorn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:35AM (2 children)
Popcorn is disgusting. Yuck.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @08:16AM
Drop the Geoduck, [wikipedia.org] Runaway! Yes, it looks like a huge penis, but that does not mean you have to stuff it in your mouth! It is just a long-necked clam! Why do you have to make everything about pervert sex?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @12:28PM
Of all the denials of objective fact in this entire discussion, this was the most offensive.
(Score: 5, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:23AM (6 children)
Investors are always seeking that hockey stick growth curve, slow at first followed by a sustained fast upward movement.
Well, literally millions of companies later, their influence has rubbed off on the environment and it's doing the same thing. Best evidence being collected in the last 5 years indicates that we are something like 3 sigma above the mean predicted temperature rise curves - it's here, and it's moving faster than anyone dared to predict 40 years ago.
https://www.miamidade.gov/global/economy/resilience/sea-level-rise-flooding.page [miamidade.gov]
https://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/local/sea-level-rise-will-make-most-of-atlantic-city-uninhabitable/article_75ad1a41-644a-5577-aee2-ecd0d2de1edd.html [pressofatlanticcity.com]
https://www.businessinsider.com/un-report-devastating-arctic-temperature-rise-locked-in-2019-3 [businessinsider.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/13/arctic-temperature-rises-must-be-urgently-tackled-warns-un [theguardian.com]
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042019/arctic-climate-change-temperature-permafrost-sea-ice-wildilfe-ecology-study [insideclimatenews.org]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:51AM (2 children)
"3 sigma above the mean predicted temperature rise curves"
Wow that sounds bad.
Until,
"40 years ago."
The mean prediction from 40 years ago is probably negative. Forty years ago many climate scientists were predicting an imminent ice age.
So what is this "mean" and how much is a "sigma" ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:15PM (1 child)
So fun explaining science to people that don't understand statistics...
A mean is what you probably think of as an average, that is add all the things, and divide by the number of things (unless we are talking geometric mean). In statistics, there are many averages, and mean is one of them, you may also have heard of median (the data point at the 50th percentile) and mode (the region of the data space that most things seem to fall into).
A sigma is a measure of the "tightness" of the data around that mean, I wont get all mathy on what it means, but 93% of the data will be within 3 sigma (assuming a normal, or bell-curve, distribution) of the mean.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:14PM
For a pedantic little turd you have very poor reading comprehension.
The question was What is this mean. Requires a numerical answer.
How much is a "sigma"? is a quantitative question. Also requires a numerical answer.
The obvious inability to quantitatively answer a simple question about data you are quoting is just another reason people don't believe your hype.
So I'll ask again. What was this mean of the predicted temperature rise 40 years ago? And what is the value of the sigma that we are three of above that mean? Answer in degrees please, and specify fahrenheit or celsius.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @08:02AM (2 children)
I don't know about 40 years ago, but we have numerous predictions from the 30 years ago and the temperatures have been increasing far more slowly than predicted. 1990 is the year the IPCC released their first climate report. [wikipedia.org] Their self declared "best" prediction expected a per-decade warming of 0.2 - 0.5 degrees with an expectation of 0.3. Here [nasa.gov] are the global temperature deltas from NASA where you can cross reference what actually happened:
1990 = baseline (all below temperatures in degrees celsius)
2000 = -0.04 change
2010 = +0.3 change
2018 = +0.1 change
Expected = +0.9 change, with a minimum of 0.6 and a maximum of 1.5
Reality = 0.36 change.
---
The Wiki page quotes the actual report as well as links to it. Quoting the IPCC:
The models have been refined over time, but are not fundamentally different. They continue to dramatically overestimate the heating. You are being rather severely misled by a media who makes profit each time you click on one of their links. And what better way for the paper boy to get you to hand him your quarter than, "The world is ending! The world is ending! Read all about it!"
And for some flavor here [apnews.com] is an article from AP, about the same time in 1989. Good stuff in there and one of the earliest references of a tipping point I'm aware of:
Lots of other great stuff in there. One other [wikipedia.org] crucial and recommended bit of reading to truly get a grasp on the nature of climate change.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @12:32PM (1 child)
I don't know what you are smoking, but here is the real data,
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ [nasa.gov]
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/ [nasa.gov]
We are at +0.5C since 1990 and this is accelerating. At about +1C since 1970s. But this entire discussion misses the main point - the warming that is still to come because this is not exactly a state system. It's a dynamic system and earth has inertia. That's the only reason why we are alive on this planet.
And he was RIGHT. Nations WILL be erased. Now the question is not whether they will be erased, but how many and how many hundreds of millions of people will migrate as result of AGW.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z [nature.com]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:54PM
I'm unsure what series you're referring to. Looking at the "Global Mean Estimates based on Land and Ocean Data" on the link [nasa.gov] you provided gives substantively the exact same data. Ends up with +0.4 instead of the +0.36 from NASA's other data. In either case even whatever source you're drawing from ends up completely outside the 0.6C-1.5C (with an expectation of +0.9C) warming predicted by the IPCC. And the person I responded to was claiming that not only have we hit warming expectations but claimed, quote:
Suffice to say that's, to put it mildly, unsupported by reality.
You do realize by trying to accept what our UN guy was saying, that it means there's absolutely no point in trying to mitigate climate change since it would be impossible? He said, literally, that if climate change is not solved by 1999 then it will have gone beyond human control. Suffice to say we did little more than ramp up our emissions pretty substantially after he chose to go all-in on the hyperbole. By refusing to reject even the most insane and obviously false of premises, let alone one that would contradict your own position, you show little more than an absolute lack of ability to consider the issue as presented by the facts.