Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Monday February 16 2015, @02:00AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the Pro-Heat dept.

Justin Gillis reports at the NYT that in the long-running political battles over climate change, the fight about what to call the various factions has been going on for a long time with people who reject the findings of climate science dismissed as “deniers” and “disinformers" and those who accept the science attacked as “alarmists” or “warmistas". The issue has recently taken a new turn, with a public appeal that has garnered 22,000 signatures asking the news media to abandon the most frequently used term for people who question climate science, “skeptic,” and call them “climate deniers” instead. The petition began with Mark B. Boslough, a physicist in New Mexico who grew increasingly annoyed by the term over several years. The phrase is wrong, says Boslough, because “these people do not embrace the scientific method.”

Last year, Boslough wrote a public letter on the issue, "Deniers are not Skeptics." and dozens of scientists and science advocates associated with the committee quickly signed it. According to Boslough real skepticism is summed up by a quote popularized by Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” "[Senator] Inhofe’s belief that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” is an extraordinary claim indeed," says Boslough. "He has never been able to provide evidence for this vast alleged conspiracy. That alone should disqualify him from using the title skeptic."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by aristarchus on Monday February 16 2015, @02:07AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Monday February 16 2015, @02:07AM (#145433) Journal

    But before we do, take a look at John Oliver's take on the matter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg [youtube.com]

    And I want to categorically deny that I ever denied that science was deniable, Because, it is, of course, if you try hard enough.

    --
    Runaway: Mentally Unfit!
    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday February 16 2015, @04:45AM

      And I want to categorically deny that I ever denied that science was deniable, Because, it is, of course, if you try hard enough.

      This should be obvious to anyone who with even a passing familiarity with the scientific method. If an idea, concept, hypothesis or theory isn't falsifiable, it's not science. Full stop. I'm not sure where you were going with that.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday February 16 2015, @05:17AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Monday February 16 2015, @05:17AM (#145500) Journal

        Full stop. I'm not sure where you were going with that.

        Right here. Thanks for getting it.

        --
        Runaway: Mentally Unfit!
      • (Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Monday February 16 2015, @10:44AM

        by BasilBrush (3994) on Monday February 16 2015, @10:44AM (#145564)

        If an idea, concept, hypothesis or theory isn't falsifiable, it's not science. Full stop.

        This is a denialist myth. It revolves around the false belief that Karl Popper's views on science define what science is.

        --
        Hurrah! Quoting works now!
        • (Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Monday February 16 2015, @03:36PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 16 2015, @03:36PM (#145668) Journal

          This is a denialist myth. It revolves around the false belief that Karl Popper's views on science define what science is.

          Of course not. Popper's definition of science defines science. By definition.

          • (Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Monday February 16 2015, @04:41PM

            by BasilBrush (3994) on Monday February 16 2015, @04:41PM (#145692)

            So you believe the myth too.

            --
            Hurrah! Quoting works now!
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 16 2015, @07:20PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 16 2015, @07:20PM (#145760) Journal
              I point out here that Karl Popper made a definition of science and that's it. You obviously don't agree entirely with the definition, which is just fine.
              • (Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Monday February 16 2015, @10:29PM

                by wantkitteh (3362) on Monday February 16 2015, @10:29PM (#145863) Homepage Journal

                The definition seems pretty good to me, although I'd never have used the word "falsifiable" no matter how correct it may be knowing that people with an irrational negative view of anything scientific would deliberately misunderstand the word and say he means that all science can be faked.

                Amazing, something Khallow and I actually agree on - in other news, the biggest snowball fight in the history of existence has just broken out in the queue for admission to Hell. ;)

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday February 16 2015, @09:46PM

          If an idea, concept, hypothesis or theory isn't falsifiable, it's not science. Full stop.

          This is a denialist myth. It revolves around the false belief that Karl Popper's views on science define what science is.

          I don't know (or particularly care) who this Karl Popper might be. Science is defined as a set of activities which hew to the scientific method [wikipedia.org] and has nothing to do with one's personal beliefs about anything, including AGCC.

          For the record (and I've stated this before on SN) I am not a climate scientist, nor can I personally verify every measurement, calculation or experimental observation made by real climate scientists. At the same time, I've seen no evidence of any vast conspiracy on the part of climate scientists to create and promulgate false results. Nor can I fathom how thousands of people who don't even know each other could benefit from such a conspiracy.

          As such, unless someone has some actual evidence, I will treat the idea of a vast conspiracy to falsely promote AGCC the same way I treat the idea of the International Jewish Conspiracy. That is, with derision and disbelief.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 16 2015, @05:02AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 16 2015, @05:02AM (#145491) Journal
      Let's call them... umm... skeniers? Or do you think deptics is closer to reality?
      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday February 16 2015, @05:12AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Monday February 16 2015, @05:12AM (#145496) Journal

        I just wanna know, are we having fun yet! No one has even mentioned the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company that hired Kermit Roosevelt to overthrow the elected government of Iran so they could latter cause global warming! Thanks, BP!

        --
        Runaway: Mentally Unfit!
    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday February 17 2015, @04:35AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday February 17 2015, @04:35AM (#145987) Journal

      As the Mighty Buzzard hisself has said, yes, this was fun. I am happy now that all the climate deniers have admitted that they are only deniers, that the scientific community once more emerged unscathed by the attacks of the unwashed (and ilnumerate) masses, and that once again not a single person has been willing to admit that they are being paid by Big Oil. All this bodes well for the future of our blessed Soylent News, which is people, and I look forward to many such flamefests in the future, no matter how warm.

      --
      Runaway: Mentally Unfit!
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by romanr on Monday February 16 2015, @02:34AM

    by romanr (102) on Monday February 16 2015, @02:34AM (#145436)

    The evidence for GW is overwhelming and so is for HWG even though not as strong as for GW. Therefore they are deniers.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @02:57AM

      Evidence that is not experimental data proving or disproving a hypothesis is evidence of fuck-all according to the Scientific Method.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @04:09AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @04:09AM (#145470)

        Hypothesis: Global Warming exists
        Data: Global warming trend.
        Therefore the hypothesis is correct.

        Any other absurd statements?

        • (Score: 5, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @04:17AM

          Recheck your scientific method. I don't see an experiment in there proving diddly.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @06:05AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @06:05AM (#145513)

            Yeah, but its an elegant theory, therefore we do not need to perform these 'experiments'.

            Nor confirm the experiments which disprove this elegant theory.

            Infact, if a scientist shows me his working out, method and references, I'll infact attack the man - because he must have been given money for his anti-science research by dirty oil... those killers of unborn children ;)

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @12:53PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @12:53PM (#145608)

            It is called a natural experiment. If you were to have a scientific background and not just a code monkey degree, or even scientific literacy, you would know that.

          • (Score: 1) by wantkitteh on Monday February 16 2015, @10:32PM

            by wantkitteh (3362) on Monday February 16 2015, @10:32PM (#145865) Homepage Journal

            Never heard of an observation study?

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by LancePodstrong on Monday February 16 2015, @05:00AM

        by LancePodstrong (5029) on Monday February 16 2015, @05:00AM (#145490)

        You're right, there aren't two Earths, so a true side by side experiment is impossible. There are two things we can do as second-best: computer models and archaeology. All of our best available science, aside from duplicating the Earth and having one without an Industrial Age, indicates that the Earth is warming and that it's caused by humans. If we know that CO2 reflects longwave radiation (which we do) and we know that we're putting it into the atmosphere (which we do) then it's reasonable to surmise that putting CO2 into the atmosphere would reflect longwave radiation back toward the earth that would otherwise have radiated into space. It's also reasonable to surmise that by changing the heat balance of the Earth such that now less heat is leaving than is arriving, the Earth will warm. Especially when all of our observations agree with the hypothesis. Specifically, which of the previous points has you unconvinced? I don't see anyone else producing another set of numbers that shows the Earth hasn't warmed, just complaining about the existing sets.

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday February 16 2015, @09:32AM

          by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday February 16 2015, @09:32AM (#145550) Journal

          > You're right, there aren't two Earths, so a true side by side experiment is impossible.

          No, but we do have Venus. Ask any Global Warming "skeptic" why Venus is hotter than Mercury.

          • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @02:30PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @02:30PM (#145642)

            Because humans burnt too many fossil fuels on Venus? ;-)

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @08:31PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @08:31PM (#145805)

              Not humans, silly! Venusians! Hmm, but we haven't heard from them in a long while. I hope they are alright.

        • (Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Tuesday February 17 2015, @01:26AM

          by wantkitteh (3362) on Tuesday February 17 2015, @01:26AM (#145932) Homepage Journal

          There doesn't need to be two earths - just let the one we've got burn while idiots insist we fiddle.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday February 16 2015, @12:48PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Monday February 16 2015, @12:48PM (#145607)

        One part of experimental evidence that we do in fact have: Labs have replicated the mechanism of AGW theory, namely that higher CO2 concentrations increase the ability of air to trap solar heat. So the current chain of reasoning is not just "higher CO2 concentrations happened, global average temperatures are increasing, so CO2 causes global average temperature increase", but actually "higher CO2 concentrations happened, we know CO2 concentrations cause an increase in average temperatures, and this is observably happening as this theory predicts."

        As a sibling poster points out, we don't have an identical copy of the Earth to experiment on, so we can't really do a full-on controlled experiment unless you have access to enough funding to get to and pay the Magratheans. What we do have is a mountain of evidence about this Earth that says that not only is CO2 causing global warming, all of our adjustments to computer simulations about the future have been because reality was worse than was predicted.

        So yes, if you're thinking global warming is nonsense, you're denying experimental evidence.

        --
        The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @01:14PM

          Then you're again looking at it wrong. The earth is the control and the models are the experiment. Your tools have to be accurate and of a known precision before you can use them in science.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by LancePodstrong on Monday February 16 2015, @02:24PM

            by LancePodstrong (5029) on Monday February 16 2015, @02:24PM (#145638)

            If I smash my phone with a hammer and my phone breaks, do I really not know that the hammer broke the phone until I perform a second control experiment with a phone without a hammer to see if it doesn't break?

            If blankets make you warmer, and you put on a blanket, would it make sense to attribute your increase in warmth to increased output from your heater? You don't have a second you to not put on a blanket and see if you don't get warmer. How can you know for sure?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @02:32PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @02:32PM (#145643)

              If I smash my phone with a hammer and my phone breaks, do I really not know that the hammer broke the phone until I perform a second control experiment with a phone without a hammer to see if it doesn't break?

              It's not broken because you smashed it with your hammer, but because you were holding it wrong while you did. :-)

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @02:42PM

              Simple, make predictions and run experiments until the precision approaches perfection. In this case, repeated applications of a blanket and measurements. Is it true certainty, no, but it's a fuckload better than the shit models we have now.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday February 16 2015, @02:29PM

            by Thexalon (636) on Monday February 16 2015, @02:29PM (#145641)

            No, you are looking at it wrong: The Earth is the experiment, and there is no control because we don't have a second Earth available. We've tested what we can test in a lab, and those tests have shown that the mechanism of AGW works exactly as predicted.

            To me, the other key factor is that those who are opposed to the theory of AGW can't say "Here's the evidence we've gathered that demonstrates that AGW is wrong." By far the most popular arguments are:
            1. The evidence is insufficient. However, when you dig into what they would deem sufficient evidence, the bar is so high it can never be met - we would need a second Earth to exact specifications, in the same location as the current one, complete with a moon that's the exact copy of Earth's moon, with all the flora and fauna that we have in this one, with 6 billion people on the planet who we've somehow convinced to not emit excess CO2.

            2. There's a giant conspiracy of climatologists who are fabricating evidence to convince us that AGW is real, which gives them big grant money and gives the evil liberals an excuse to destroy the economy so the world becomes a hippie paradise. This argument is so silly it's hardly worth addressing, but the simplest argument is this: Any climatologist who demonstrated AGW was false would get so much money from the oil and coal industries it's not even funny, which means that all the financial incentives point the exact opposite way the conspiracy theorists think.

            3. The apocalypse, complete with the Rapture, will come before AGW becomes a problem. Given the track record of end-of-the-world predictions, I'd consider that an unwise basis for public policy.

            Hence calling them "deniers" seems totally reasonable to me, because the counterarguments are basically nonsense.

            --
            The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
            • (Score: 2, Redundant) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @02:39PM

              You have no proven tools, how precisely are you predicting further rises? Prove your tools first via experiment then predict. Until experimentation is done you have nothing but a hypothesis.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 3, Funny) by wantkitteh on Monday February 16 2015, @10:37PM

                by wantkitteh (3362) on Monday February 16 2015, @10:37PM (#145867) Homepage Journal

                Serious question: are you mentally impaired in some way? Not trying to be trollish, just wondering if you're autistic and can't personally handle anyone who has a different opinion.

      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 16 2015, @05:56PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday February 16 2015, @05:56PM (#145722) Journal

        Someone who posts the same unsupported assertion 100 times in a thread about Global Warming I call a denier.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @06:21PM

          Unsupported? There is absolutely nothing unsupported about the Scientific Method. Follow it or STFU.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 16 2015, @07:30PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday February 16 2015, @07:30PM (#145764) Journal

            Unsupported? There is absolutely nothing unsupported about the Scientific Method. Follow it or STFU.

             
            Trivial examples of the scientific method working just fine in situations where there is no ideal "control" have been posted all over this thread: Geology, Physics, Astronomy, etc, etc, etc. That you ignore these and continue to post the exact same tired trope 100 times is why you are a Denier and not a Skeptic.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by BK on Monday February 16 2015, @04:15AM

      by BK (4868) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 16 2015, @04:15AM (#145475) Journal

      I'm gonna quibble, so I'd like to clarify a few things first off:
      1: Climate changes. Has changed. Will change.
      2: CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is more potent than the N2 and O2 in enabling heat retention in the atmosphere. Methane is even worse. I'm not sure where H2O fits on the greenhouse spectrum but it is more effective than CO2. Unless it's in clouds because then it reflects shit.
      3: Humans release fucktons of CO2 into the atmoshere along with other things. All of those things impact the overall condition of the atmosphere. Humans have created an atmosphere with greater capacity for heat retention. AGW is real.

      In spite of the above, the "overwhelming" evidence sucks. It invites skeptics and deniers of all types. It relies on data that is wrong. It treats fiction as fact. It is right less often than a broken clock. But it is still overwhelming and undeniable... like the stench of raw sewage. Details follow:

      1. Every falsifiable prediction (that I am aware of) made based on "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" has been been falsified. We all know about the "hockey stick" graphs and we know it hasn't happened that way. The models remain broken. The reliable dataset is too small.

      Lately, the "predictions" amount to scapegoating the present. No 2005 model predcted that LA would have an epic drought while boston would have epic snow in the winter of 2015, but that hasn't stopped "scientists" from blaming AGW now. Those familar with (any) science know that this is BS of course... If Pat Robertson wanted to blame it on the sins of man he'd be as believable. These aren't predictions and they are not falisfiable. Their truth is evident and obvious to true belivers of all stripes however.

      2. Advocates og GW/HGW often advocate policy change. Policy change almost lways produces winners and losers in both the short and long run. Those potential losers have a _vested interest_ in skepticisim. Amusingly, the potential winners also have a vested interest in attacking and labeling those "skeptics". That means that there is an above average chance that the the Parent post was written by a self-serving prick.

      3. The more the public looks at the process and procedures of the "scientists", the more arcane it becomes. Those who ask questions are vilified, even on boards like this one. The proof is complicated and so can't stand public scrutiny. "Peer review" is the new holy writ and would-be skeptics are denied peerage. The public is left to take the conclusions of these scientists on "faith" as the data and processes don't stand up to public scrutiny. You and I are not "qualified" to understand.

      4. Those who understand the science behind AGW despite the above realize that any system that can begin to meet the energy demands of the world will affect climate in some way. Shitloads of windmills, deserts paved with solar, harnessing the ocean tides... will all change the climate. The only way to reduce the impact is to killreduce or marginalize huge populations of humans.

      I think we should start with everyone who disagrees with me.

      After that, we should wait until the science improves enough to give us additional sensible options (since eliminating everyone who disagrees withme is the most sensible option ever).

      --

      One final note. I am a flat-earth denier and am PROUD of this fact. I come from a family of deniers. I believe that the Earth is ROUND. I believe this even though every measurement I have taken contraindicates this conclusion. Oh, I say it's because of science. But mostly we, my fellow deniers and I, just take this on faith. Amen.

      --
      ...but you HAVE heard of me.
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 16 2015, @05:41AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 16 2015, @05:41AM (#145506) Journal

        2. Advocates og GW/HGW often advocate policy change. Policy change almost lways produces winners and losers in both the short and long run.

        The demand for or the policy change by itself is irrelevant: not taking any policy change also produces winners and losers in both the short and long run.
        The rest of point 2 remains valid.

        I think we should start with everyone who disagrees with me.

        I'm curious: start exactly what?

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by gnuman on Monday February 16 2015, @05:41AM

        by gnuman (5013) on Monday February 16 2015, @05:41AM (#145507)

        H2O is not part of global warming at all, because it is saturated. It's not controllable. If we had pools of CO2 on the planet, CO2 would be saturated in the atmosphere too and no one would be talking about it. It only matters because it is a trace gas.

        As to policies and AGW, well, there is only ONE policy that stops it. Stop emitting CO2 dug up from sequestered sources - fossil fuels. That's all. The rest, like "Carbon tax" or "Carbon credits" or other crap, that's all minutia of politics and economics. Climatologists know nothing about it. But it takes politics to make changes like this. We have the ozone layer because of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol [wikipedia.org] . Politicians didn't want to retire to UV Index 60 vacations so they did something about it. But Global Warming? Great-great-great-grand children problem.

        Ozone depletion also had many deniers. Spending millions on ads and how government would kill all jobs by regulating CFCs. Many of the CFC deniers switched side when their patent on CFC production expired, and they secured patents on refrigerants that weren't banned by Montreal Protocol.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon#Regulation_and_DuPont [wikipedia.org]

        In conjunction with other industrial peers DuPont sponsored efforts such as the "Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy" to question anti-CFC science, but in a turnabout in 1986 DuPont, with new patents in hand, publicly condemned CFCs. DuPont representatives appeared before the Montreal Protocol urging that CFCs be banned worldwide and stated that their new HCFCs would meet the worldwide demand for refrigerants.

        The bottom line is,

        1. AGW exists
        2. Human CO2 emissions is the reason
        3. If you deny the above, you are a denier of reality. You may as well start proclaiming that HIV is "god's wrath on gays" or that vaccines cause autism because you'll be in that crowed.
        4. What you do, if anything, about AGW, that's politics. The question is basically, is the map of Earth as in Cretaceous Hot House acceptable or not?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_forests_of_the_Cretaceous [wikipedia.org]
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_forests_of_the_Cretaceous#mediaviewer/File:Blakey_90moll.jpg [wikipedia.org]

        You can see which parts of continents get somewhat flooded, though continents were slightly in different places than today. (India by Madagascar, for example) But arguing that such a map of the world is ok is fine in my book. Much better than putting your head in the sand and claiming that climatologists, geologists, paleontologists, physicists and others know shit about their professions.

        PS.

        The proof is complicated and so can't stand public scrutiny.

        Science is not about proofs - it's about evidence. And if public can't evaluate the evidence, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you don't understand how transistors work it doesn't mean that computers are mythical. And unless you have at least an undergrad degree in physics, you don't know how transistors work.

        • (Score: 1) by BK on Monday February 16 2015, @05:55AM

          by BK (4868) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 16 2015, @05:55AM (#145511) Journal

          there is only ONE policy that stops it

          Wrong. There is at least one other. Geoengineeriing the climate to be the way we want it to be in the face of whatever method we want to use to obtain energy would also work. Honestly, I think it is the more likely solution (as in more likely to be implemented, not "the best") in the long run.

             

          --
          ...but you HAVE heard of me.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Monday February 16 2015, @05:56AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 16 2015, @05:56AM (#145512) Journal

          H2O is not part of global warming at all, because it is saturated. It's not controllable. If we had pools of CO2 on the planet, CO2 would be saturated in the atmosphere too and no one would be talking about it.

          Um... what? You haven't paid attention to physics classes, have you? Liquid water has the maximum specific heat - 4.1813 kJ/(kg x K).
          What do you think the Pacific Ocean has done in the last decade [smh.com.au]?

          The last positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [noaa.gov], also known as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, ran from about 1978 to 1998, a period of a rapid increase of surface temperatures. Since then, temperature increases have flattened out, despite an increase in greenhouse gases, as oceans have taken up more of the excess heat.

          We'll see how it goes when that amount of warm water can't cool anymore (e.g. when not enough ice at the poles, those pesky polar bears used all of it as a float).

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Monday February 16 2015, @08:21AM

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday February 16 2015, @08:21AM (#145541) Journal

        We all know about the "hockey stick" graphs and we know it hasn't happened that way.

        The hockey stick graphs were no prediction, but a drawing of past data. And as such it certainly did happen.

        No 2005 model predcted that LA would have an epic drought while boston would have epic snow in the winter of 2015

        Of course not. They are climate models, not weather forecasts.

        Climate models make statements like "next summer will be warmer than next winter." Weather forecast make statements like "tomorrow it will snow." Weather forecasts cannot make predictions half a year in advance, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that next summer will indeed be warmer than next winter.

        but that hasn't stopped "scientists" from blaming AGW now.

        You did good to put "scientists" in apostrophes here, since all real scientists always will tell you that a single event in isolation tells you nothing about global warming. If your information sources don't tell you that, get a better information source.

        Advocates og GW/HGW often advocate policy change.

        Sure. If you are on a track where something that looks like a train is approaching, it is a good idea to leave that track. Of course it doesn't help that the decisions that are made in the name of climate change are not always very meaningful (as in, they often don't do much to improve on the situation anyway). And frankly, I think that quite a few of those decisions don't have climate change as actual motivation.

        Policy change almost lways produces winners and losers in both the short and long run.

        While not changing policy will only produce losers in the long run.

        That means that there is an above average chance that the the Parent post was written by a self-serving prick.

        By the same logic I must conclude that there is an above average chance that your post was written by a self-serving prick.

        Those who ask questions are vilified, even on boards like this one.

        Please show me where someone who asks questions is vilified on SN (note: claims disguised as questions don't count).

        "Peer review" is the new holy writ and would-be skeptics are denied peerage. The public is left to take the conclusions of these scientists on "faith" as the data and processes don't stand up to public scrutiny.

        I'd like to see evidence for that claim. And please, real evidence. Not "someone on a blog on the internet said so" or "someone in the media claimed it".

        Those who understand the science behind AGW despite the above realize that any system that can begin to meet the energy demands of the world will affect climate in some way.

        The total energy consumption of the whole of humanity is negligible compared to the extra energy trapped in the atmosphere as heat thanks to the extra CO2.

        I think we should start with everyone who disagrees with me.

        So you consider yourself an infallible god, and everyone who disagrees with you is a heretic that shall be killed?

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 1) by BK on Monday February 16 2015, @01:56PM

          by BK (4868) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 16 2015, @01:56PM (#145632) Journal

          The point for point could be fun (over a beer someplace), but since we agree on the ultimate conclusion, it'd be arranging the Titanic deck chairs. Still...

          Those who understand the science behind AGW despite the above realize that any system that can begin to meet the energy demands of the world will affect climate in some way.

          The total energy consumption of the whole of humanity is negligible compared to the extra energy trapped in the atmosphere as heat thanks to the extra CO2.

          That one requires that you show your work. You might be right, but I've never seen the calculation. That said, it's not on point anyway.

          The point is that energy consumption continues to increase in both per-capita and in absolute terms. The most readily available source of that energy is hydrocarbon fuels and their use continues to grow. Technologies that might reasonably replace those hydrocarbons (with the possible exception of nuclear, which comes with its own problems) all produce their own environmental and climatological impacts.

          This leaves 3 options:

          1: Deny energy, and the things that might be produced from it, to the bulk of the population by mandating and enforcing the non-use of hydrocarbon energy. Accept that many (many!) will die because of this. Or just kill them to prevent an uprising later.
          2: Accept a modified environment as OK. Eventually, this might produce a "Cretaceous hothouse".
          3: Geo-engineer the the climate. The fact that humans can change global climate is no longer in question (AGW). We just have to decide the setting we prefer.

          I think we should start with everyone who disagrees with me.

          So you consider yourself an infallible god, and everyone who disagrees with you is a heretic that shall be killed?

          No. But if we pick (1) above then someone will be choosing who lives and who dies. Who would you have make the choice?

          --
          ...but you HAVE heard of me.
          • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday March 02 2015, @08:24PM

            by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday March 02 2015, @08:24PM (#152089) Journal

            How on earth do you get from not changing the global climate to not modifying the environment? For the record: I am OK with modifying the local environment. However there's a big difference between that and the change of the global climate. The difference being that an equivalent to the local environment can usually be found elsewhere. The global climate only exists once.

            --
            The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
            • (Score: 1) by BK on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:27AM

              by BK (4868) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 03 2015, @02:27AM (#152281) Journal

              Nice resurrection of an old thread.

              Anything that changes the local environment, when scaled up, changes many, many, local environments. That's the problem with hydrocarbon fuels.... one car isn't a problem. But a billion? One windmill isn't a problem... But hundreds of thousands will alter global weather. Ditto solar plants. Hydro power could work, but there really isn't enough. Nuclear? Fukushima? Tidal energy... You'd be fucking with energy of the terra-luna system.

              There is no such thing as free energy. It should be a law...

              --
              ...but you HAVE heard of me.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Monday February 16 2015, @05:24AM

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Monday February 16 2015, @05:24AM (#145502) Journal

      I've tried debating Creationists. They aren't really arguing against evolution, they're arguing against science itself. They're happy to take science that confirms their biases and beliefs, but they leave the science they don't like.

      They'll argue that there isn't proof. What they mean is that you can't prove anything as soon as you invoke the supernatural. That's true. But what they failed to understand is that science is not applicable to the supernatural, only the natural. An omnipotent being could do anything. The world could have been created 5 days or 5 minutes ago, with creatures that think they remember things that happened 10 years ago. There's no way to prove it didn't happen like that, or any other way anyone cares to invent. They love to invoke Occam's Razor, love the idea of simple answers, simple explanations, and the simplest explanation of all is "God did it". They don't get that that's not an explanation at all. It's not even begging the question, another concept they don't grasp. They also take great comfort in the thought that God has a plan, and whenever anything goes well, embrace that as evidence that there is a God and He loves them. But they also say no one can know God's purpose, especially when things go badly. That response is another total cop out.

      That's why hammering them with the tons of evidence in support of evolution does not work. It's the same with Climate Change.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @02:37AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @02:37AM (#145437)

    OK, I'll play ... how is it that someone who doubts this science is accurate or truthful (there's been plenty to stoke those fires) is a "skeptic" or a "denier". Would that make someone who thinks this is 110% on the money a "believer" (said with the same tone reserved for religious zealots)?

    Would someone who doesn't believe the data presented by scientists that shows the Earth's temperature is not rising a "skeptic" or a "denier" of that data?

    You can try to label people all you want in a way that makes them sound wrong before they ever open their mouths. That doesn't make it accurate, right, or convincing. Me? I'm a "knower"; I know that man is fucking up this planet as fast as humanly possible. I'm just surprised we haven't invented machines that are specifically designed to destroy the planet just to show it whose the boss.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday February 16 2015, @04:06AM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Monday February 16 2015, @04:06AM (#145469) Homepage

      The notion of "climate change" is like a kid with divorced parents caught in the middle of a bitter custody battle -- The kid does need attention but the pro and contra-camps are each twisting the facts to suit their own radical win-it-all-at-all costs agendas rather than constructively and unselfishly addressing the issue, ultimately neglecting the issue at hand while they argue with each other all damn day.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by LancePodstrong on Monday February 16 2015, @05:09AM

        by LancePodstrong (5029) on Monday February 16 2015, @05:09AM (#145494)

        Spot on. I post on here a lot about climate science because I'm a passionate amateur meteorologist. Climate affects my livelihood, a berry farm in southeastern Minnesota. AGW is real and people need to understand this because we need to prepare. Floods, droughts, mudslides, heat waves big enough to cause power outages, and prolonged periods of cold in the midlatitudes where the jet stream is more and more prone to getting stuck in the same pattern these days.

        All the same, I think any government attempt to combat climate change is going to be a complete and utter crock. They'll just take the opportunity to reward their campaign contributors in the right industries and slap more taxes on us. It's a lose-lose.

      • (Score: 2) by fadrian on Tuesday February 17 2015, @04:52PM

        by fadrian (3194) on Tuesday February 17 2015, @04:52PM (#146175) Homepage

        It's more like one parent claiming the kid doesn't exist.

        --
        That is all.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @02:38AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @02:38AM (#145438)

    .... so maybe he will publish his experimental methodology. And how he intends to represent a control group. And exactly which variables will he try to independently set and which ones is he looking to measure in order to discover dependency. Or is that this 'scientist' is not really sure how the scientific method works, he simply knows how "to embrace it" and has a whole lot of disjointed data sets he simply must justify the expense in assembling. "Climate Scientists": Galileo is turning in his grave.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by dcollins on Monday February 16 2015, @07:32AM

      by dcollins (1168) on Monday February 16 2015, @07:32AM (#145533) Homepage

      Because Galileo is famous for running controlled experiments with planets that he specially designed and treated before releasing into orbit.

      • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @09:15AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @09:15AM (#145549)

        Well, maybe he did and that's why he got into trouble with the church. Maybe he designed them wrong and that's why they're so cold and so far away now. You can't know because you weren't there.

        "You know, Galileo, we're not trying to tell you how to do your job. But we'd really appreciate it if maybe you could just put a verse or two - sort ones, or maybe a psalm, on the surface. You know, just to help reassure people. Now, if you're feeling open to suggestion I'd like to see 'Created by Galileo, inspired by God' on there too. No? Well, it's your decision so I'll let you think about it. Um ... you look thirsty. Let me get you something to drink."

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @11:32AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @11:32AM (#145580)

        Justify bad behavior by pointing to bad behavior

    • (Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday February 17 2015, @07:52PM

      by tathra (3367) on Tuesday February 17 2015, @07:52PM (#146269)

      And how he intends to represent a control group.

      since replicating the planet is impossible, we cannot use a controlled experiment and must rely on natural or field experiments. both are perfectly valid.

  • (Score: 2, Troll) by Fauxlosopher on Monday February 16 2015, @02:45AM

    by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Monday February 16 2015, @02:45AM (#145441) Journal

    Climates change. As for the why and how, that's what the "scientific method" is for. Science isn't magic or a religion - it's a process, and it requires a hypothesis that must be repeatable and verifiable by others.

    A fellow long on insight and short on patience by the name of Karl Denninger has examined this mess and asked in turn, "What Do We Call Media Fraudsters And Hucksters?" [market-ticker.org] Here's the first part of his article.

    Yes, and the so-called "climate denier" label is intended to evoke The Holocaust, which is an outrageous and intentional appeal to a factually-known act of mass-murder that left a few million skeletons behind as evidence.

    The problem with so-called "climate science" is that it's not science at all; it's hucksterism and fraud.  Let's look at a few (and only a few!) of the problems that the so-called "climate change" people peddle.

    1. It was called "global warming", but when the warming stopped and failed to verify against the claims of their computer models for 15 years running they changed their name.   That's fraud.

    2. Only something like 3% of the surface of the earth has a temperature probe covering a place in the immediate vicinity.  That's a lack of data.

    3. There has been zero control, intentionally, for the change in the surface of the earth immediately surrounding said temperature probes.  Specifically, over time as development has continued people do things like put blacktop roads and parking lots near said probes, which raises the local temperature (due to the sun heating the material,  not atmospheric composition.)  This impact must be adjusted out, preferably by adding more probes in other, non-developed places, but it isn't -- intentionally.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Monday February 16 2015, @03:02AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Monday February 16 2015, @03:02AM (#145449) Journal

      Karl Denninger

      Do you mean the Tea Party founder? His logic seems irrefutable! This is probably because it is not logic.

      --
      Runaway: Mentally Unfit!
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Sir Finkus on Monday February 16 2015, @03:09AM

        by Sir Finkus (192) on Monday February 16 2015, @03:09AM (#145451) Journal

        This is probably because it is not logic.

        Neither are Ad hominem attacks.

        I don't really have an educated opinion on the matter because I haven't looked into it yet, but the comment posted did bring up some possible alternative explanations.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by aristarchus on Monday February 16 2015, @03:25AM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Monday February 16 2015, @03:25AM (#145459) Journal

          possible alternative explanations.

          That is denialism at its finest, right there! "Not saying $scientific_theory is wrong, but there are possible alternative explanations!" Of course there are, because it is science.

          And on ad hominem, it is only a fallacy where the character of the person is irrelevant to the matter at hand. But if someone pulls out a Tea Partier (even an ex-Tea Partier) as an expert on Anthroposcenic Global Climate Warming Change, their past intellectual endeavors are in fact more than relevant.

          --
          Runaway: Mentally Unfit!
          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Fauxlosopher on Monday February 16 2015, @04:46AM

            by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Monday February 16 2015, @04:46AM (#145487) Journal

            I've grown to despise the terms most used by individuals to describe their preferences. "Liberal", "conservative", "rights", "duty", "republican", "democrat", "libertarian", "anarchist", ad nauseum - the meaning of such words has become corrupted by the lazy use of them as words without any fixed definition. They're now most often used to simply pidgeonhole and dismiss other people who don't use the same terms to identify themselves, notably as a means to avoid examining another's premise using tools such as logic, reason, and verifiable fact.

            So, ask yourself if this sounds as silly to you as it does to me: attempt to discredit someone who is stating that fraud is being committed in regards to one subject, based solely on the fact that said someone was intrumental in starting a movement intended to address an earlier and unrelated fraud. The fact that Karl was correct in regards to the first fraud (has John Corzine even been arrested yet?) is just icing on the cake.

            • (Score: 2, Troll) by aristarchus on Monday February 16 2015, @05:08AM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Monday February 16 2015, @05:08AM (#145493) Journal

              Faux, well it is right there in your user name, isn't it! Such faux outrage does not serve you well. You mistake the point being made. Appeals to authority depend on reputation, nothing more, nothing less. So when you say,

              attempt to discredit someone who is stating that fraud is being committed

              by relating this to other unrelated alleged frauds, the relation is that they are alleged by the same person. Now one might argue that our bete noir was correct in his initial allegations, but nonetheless, guilt by association is also not necessarily a fallacy. Sometimes who a person associates with does say something about the reliability of their views. This is where the pidgeonholing you refer to comes from, but often times it is a good guide. As Deepthroat said, "Follow the money". But then, scientific method aside, that is what this is all about.

              And for scientists, the cut comes with peer-review. Some businessman espousing on how global warming is a fraud because there are not "probes" (interesting choice of words, but we will drop that) on every square meter of the planet would be immediately dismissed by anyone with a reputation for rational thought, not just those with respect for the scientific method. Mutual respect for reputation is the basis of peer review, and an insinuation of bias, of ulterior motive, is fatal to status in the scientific community. So the cut is between scientists, and those who respect science, and those who want to come up with "alternative theories" and demand they be taken seriously just because they have not been conclusively (in their minds) proven wrong. There is a word for this. "Deniers" is rather kind, I think.

              --
              Runaway: Mentally Unfit!
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @05:25AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @05:25AM (#145503)

                Rather than credulously ask you how you see Karl Denninger personally profiting by "following the money" by making the case for fraud in claims of human-caused climate change, I'll make this my last response to you and hope the audience makes up their own minds as it seems pretty clear to me in light of your hyperbolic "every square meter of the planet" retort that your mind is already made up.

                • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday February 16 2015, @05:49AM

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Monday February 16 2015, @05:49AM (#145509) Journal

                  Last response from an AC! I dream of the day! Most likely not going to happen. But to your question.

                  Yes, the accusation of financial interest is a form of the circumstantial ad hominem. Just because someone stands to profit from the policy they advocate does not mean it is not a good policy. But it does suggest that they are not putting it forward for that reason. This is where all the accusations of a conflict of interest by climate scientists are laughable. Do you know how much scientists get paid? They usually work for universities! Under constant threat of privatization by monied energy interests! Laughable.

                  No as for the Tea Party, Taxed Enough Already? I am surprised by the revisionist history that has been offered here. Against financial corruption? Bush's bailout of Wall Street? I guess it is possible, but there are alternative explanations! Like Dick Armey! And may be Denninger is not a Michele Bachman or a Louie Gohmert, but definitely on that side of the crazy wall. I do not find the witness credible.

                  As for personal interest by Denninger? I don't know what his portfolio looks like or that of his clients, but I can tell you that whenever any financial person sticks their head into anything other than market forecasts and psychics, they are completely out of their league. Jim Cramer, anyone? Denninger's point about only 3% of the world being monitored by "probes" (he said it again!) belies his ignorance of empirical scientific data. Again, I have no confidence in proffered authority, and reject him as an authority on this issue.

                  Am I too harsh? Anyone who would cite this person as an authority has to be a denier, or a Teabagger. My mind is not made up, though. Change it.

                  --
                  Runaway: Mentally Unfit!
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @03:16AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @03:16AM (#145454)

        Yes, one (if not the) founder of the original Tea Party, which has long been hijacked and disavowed by those who were instrumental to its inception. The Tea Party wasn't about rah rah republicans, but about stopping the jaw-droppingly massive fraud that permeated (and still to this day saturates) the US financial systems. Oft-quoted, "where are the handcuffs?". Still missing, that's where, and the current form of "tea party" has no interest in anything much beyond fraudulent business as usual.

        What attempts at government redress have YOU started?

  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @02:50AM

    1. Research
    2. Hypothesis
    3. Experiment*
    4. Theory

     

    That is the fucking Scientific Method. Climate Change is stuck on step two. Don't shit talk until you're willing to practice what you preach.

    *This means reproducible results that either prove or disprove your hypothesis. For things involving weather/climate, I'll even go as low as three sigma meaning success, two meaning a serious indication of a problem, and one meaning this warrants further looking into.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @03:23AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @03:23AM (#145457)

      BUzzard.
      You know that there isn't a way to have a control group in this context. It is a good point.

        However there are ways to physically and computationally model processes (e.g. emissions, volcanoes, evaporation) and to then test the hypothesis that the aggregate model of a collection of such modeled processes would yield increasing temperatures or not. That IS an application of the scientific method.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @03:25AM

        Actual weather is the control group. Models are the experiment, as in can humans build a model that can accurately predict global temperatures for a year/decade/etc...

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17 2015, @01:15AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17 2015, @01:15AM (#145925)

          All your credibility just went out the window. Your a troll and too stupid to realize it.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @03:28AM

        Hit submit too soon, so part two: Until you can prove a tool is reliable, you cannot use it to prove anything else. Thus models MUST be able to be provably accurate or you must declare the amount of inaccuracy they have in your result.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @04:11AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @04:11AM (#145471)

          Your brain isn't reliable, hell it is asleep a third of the time dreaming up nonsense. Therefore it can't be used to prove anything else.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @04:20AM

            You noticed that too? Personally I think my brain is a perl script on some guy's computer and you lot are just input piped in from /dev/random.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17 2015, @01:18AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17 2015, @01:18AM (#145927)

              Everyone else is wrong and you're right. Yeah, you ain't the first to think that, back on the meds and keep your hands where we can see em, nutjob.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Joe Desertrat on Monday February 16 2015, @03:51AM

      by Joe Desertrat (2454) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 16 2015, @03:51AM (#145465)

      So the "Scientific Method" is the religion to which we are supposed to be adhering and every peg must be hammered into that hole. Science is, at its core, simply observation of events. You can test observations, in some cases, with controlled experiments, but something on as grand a scale as the climate any real experiments are going to take too long to produce incontrovertible results (and by then it would be too late), even if we had the ability to apply controls on that scale. So what do we do? We collect evidence and try to make sense of it. Current data can be compared to the fossil record, but there are a lot of variables for which to account. Climate scientists study this stuff for a living, and by an almost unanimous majority they are very alarmed by what they are observing. The "data" we get from the "skeptics" that has reached the media (admittedly a bad source for anything science related) seems simply to be the dredging up of old, one-off, now discredited articles (i.e. global cooling, the earth is now in a cooling period) that even the original authors now claim were mistakes and presenting those artifacts as evidence that there is doubt about climate change. In short, the only point the skeptics have in their favor is that the process is going to take longer than the attention span of the media and the public. Climate scientists are making observations that indicate we are headed for trouble. Waiting for a more serious indication of a problem means simply doing nothing until we have reached the disaster stage. All of the skepticism of course is simply a ploy to continue to support the business models of the fossil fuel industries, instead of allowing innovation and economic growth in alternative energy and associated mitigation industries.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @03:57AM

        That you are unable to do it properly does not make unscientific things scientific. Stop calling it "settled", "proven", etc... and I've no beef.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by LancePodstrong on Monday February 16 2015, @02:53PM

          by LancePodstrong (5029) on Monday February 16 2015, @02:53PM (#145652)

          You've replied to other subsequent comments but not to my earlier one. Precisely which of the two following points do you disagree with?
          1. CO2 reflects longwave radiation
          https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/ [wordpress.com]
          If these papers aren't enough science for you I don't know what is.

          2. We're putting CO2 into the atmosphere

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @02:59PM

            I don't disagree with that at all. I disagree with saying it is causing significant warming because it requires its very own proof. I disagree with saying we are warming at all because I've seen enough of the methodology to know it's pretty shit.

            Do proper science and you'll have no beefs out of me. But you gotta do proper science.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by LancePodstrong on Monday February 16 2015, @03:49PM

              by LancePodstrong (5029) on Monday February 16 2015, @03:49PM (#145673)

              I can't help but get the feeling you're being intentionally obtuse. But in case you're not, here are a few good links to get started on the latest atmospheric and biological science.
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofaoiHYKtlc [youtube.com]
              http://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/news/review/review-vol11.pdf [fs.fed.us]
              http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090209-trees-migrating-north.html [nationalgeographic.com]
              http://www.startribune.com/blogs/226930661.html [startribune.com]

              I live in Minnesota, the fastest warming state in the nation, and one at the confluence of three distinct ecological zones highly dependent on temperature and precipitation. Our frost-free growing season is now 9 days longer than when my grandparents farmed here. Summertime humidity is dramatically increasing as subtropical airmasses push further north. The number of nights below -30F at notoriously cold reporting stations is decreasing. The number of subzero nights in the more populated areas is decreasing. The boreal forest is moving north at at least 5 miles per decade. No one here denies climate change anymore because we live in it every day. The cold defines us as a region and it is changing.

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @05:30PM

                Regional, anecdotal claims, however valid, do not make for scientific study of the climate. And I have seen plenty of what people are calling science, very little of it is. You have to prove predictions in science and you can't do that by historical data, no matter how much of it you have. Where is experimental science is possible, you must perform an experiment and live with the results or your shit simply is not science. Research? Sure it can be research. History? That as well. Science has rules though and you gotta follow them or you're not doing science.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 2) by LancePodstrong on Monday February 16 2015, @08:06PM

                  by LancePodstrong (5029) on Monday February 16 2015, @08:06PM (#145790)

                  Obviously you didn't read any of my links because they are, in fact, science. You just throw out anything you don't like by claiming it's not science. The nice thing about the truth is that it's true whether you believe in it or not. None of the claims therein are regional or anecdotal. The boreal forest is moving poleward in the entire northern hemisphere as the frost-free season lengthens. You're more than intentionally obtuse, you're willfully ignorant.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by cmn32480 on Monday February 16 2015, @04:26AM

        by cmn32480 (443) <{cmn32480} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Monday February 16 2015, @04:26AM (#145480) Journal

        Just as point of thought...

        Climate scientists study this stuff for a living

        Much like Al Sharpton crying racism at every turn, many climate scientists know the if they cannot create at least some form of worry, they are out of a job. And those that have turned the climate change debate into their own personal fortune (ahem Al Gore ahem) do nothing to advance the science, yet quote whatever science, pseudo-science, or writing on a cocktail napkin that they find that will support their stance and enrich their pockets.

        If people would stop the political pandering and actually look at the data that has been collected in the last hundred plus years and make the adjustments for the local changes (parking lots, etc), we might actually be able to find out what really is happening.

        This is not the same as studying the Astronomy of a far off galaxy. There are many, many BILLIONS of dollars at stake in the climate change debate. And no matter what anybody from either side says, they both want those dollars.

        Am I pretty certain that pollution is bad? Yes.
        Do I think using renewable clean energy is good? Yes.
        Do I think that the people who are profiting off the climate change debate give one rats ass about "saving the planet"? Hell no.

        --
        "It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday February 16 2015, @04:52AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 16 2015, @04:52AM (#145488) Journal

      There are heaps of sciences for which one can't organize an experiment, thus the data available can come from observation - this is to say by requiring the possibility/existence of an experimental avenue, you are imposing too big a constraint in the definition of the scientific method

      • You can't experiment with a neutron star: fortunately the universe give you plenty of objects which may be neutron stars (because they somehow fit your model). Yet, you don't know for sure - never visited one close enough to experiment with it (provoke a change, observe the effects) - the hypothesis they exist is plausible and one can continue to build on it (until one finds something contradictory)
      • You can not (at least, not longer) experiment with the negative emotions of a toddler. This doesn't make paediatric psychology less of a science - disturbed kids exist enough to accumulate a body of knowledge by observation

      No the model is not the experiment: the model is the hypothesis
      Yes, even if you can't experiment as such, to be scientific, you still need to bring your model in accord with the reality of the observations - be them the result of a direct experiment or just by using the "variability of the nature"

      .

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by moondrake on Monday February 16 2015, @09:41AM

      by moondrake (2658) on Monday February 16 2015, @09:41AM (#145551)

      You are aware of the affect that according to your "definition", most of astrophysics, geology, meteorology, are not science either?
      Oh, you can add nearly all biology as well (because of the 3 sigma).

      But we established before that we disagree about the definition of science. And I am fine with that.

      What I actually was curious about was the topic here: how would you like to be called?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17 2015, @02:46AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17 2015, @02:46AM (#145965)

        Just because it is an -ology doesn't automatically mean it has to be a science. It just means it is being studied. Study is good, knowledge is good. Natural philosophers like Newton were not scientists, either. It is no insult to geology to point out that it is not a science, but a field of study.

        Occupationally geologists are generally either teachers or a form a mining analyst. They should be proud of that, because it is what they do.

        Just as, meteorologists should be proud of their job. Not everybody in the world has the special blend of talents needed to read the computer predictions with pedantic precision. They're probably the most important branch of journalism.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @07:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @07:36PM (#145771)

      For things involving weather/climate, I'll even go as low as three sigma meaning success, two meaning a serious indication of a problem

      Generous of you, since the gold standard for statistical significance in the scientific method you fellate is only two-sigma.

      But you have it wrong. It's not that the entirety needs to be reproduced, and then experiments run on it. It suffices to make predictions about specific events or subprocesses that indicate which hypothesis is correct. See also, how they validated Special and General Relativity.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @10:38PM

        Two sigma? So roughly 95% certain? I think not. I enjoy the certainty of physics too much to lower my standards to that degree.

        Which would all be fine if they would do that to prove their tools to be of a known degree of precision and accuracy and then report that degree. The only reason in the world not to is because you know your tools are shit and thus your conclusions reached from their measurements are shit. Well, no, there's also laziness.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17 2015, @01:20AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17 2015, @01:20AM (#145928)

          "Repetitious and repetitious" said the New York Times

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Monday February 16 2015, @02:53AM

    by GungnirSniper (1671) on Monday February 16 2015, @02:53AM (#145443) Journal

    It seems like there is cognitive dissonance on both sides of this debate, as both sides have ulterior political motives for their stances.

    The believers have a hard-green core who are against population growth, new and cleaner energy sources, and who often are well enough off that a jump in energy prices won't directly affect them. They are not usually willing to admit their warnings were previously that cooling was the problem, not warming. [wikipedia.org] With their anti-nuclear stance blocking new plants, we are stuck relying on carbon-polluting sources or renewable sources that are not yet fully viable.

    The disbelievers have a pro-business core who are all for cheap energy, favor population growth (more customers), and their political allies often represent American states that are economically dependent on energy production like West Virginia. They may disingenuously point to short term cold blips in the the long term increase [dailymail.co.uk] in temperature to attempt to disprove the other side. With their investments in coal, oil, and gas extraction, they won't push all that hard for either nuclear nor renewable sources.

    Maybe we'll see safer nuclear designs that will make the most polluting energy source, coal power, a thing of the past. [bostonherald.com]

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @02:59AM

      And then you have people like me who simply hate people calling stuff science when they haven't followed the Scientific Method.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @03:28AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @03:28AM (#145461)

        Ok so you're only a dev. That's nothing to be ashamed of son! Thank you for knowing science requires repeatable results. This article was going to be the last straw for me with SN; I get antsy even hearing "Climate Science"- these words cannot go together until we have a second, identical earth to experiment on.

        But now I know the Mighty Buzzard, and as I know, then I shall also be known, and thus I will abideth the Soylent.

        Seriously, I appreciate it - I was beginning to wonder.... maybe I'll even sign up for an account and stop ACing it.

        • (Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @03:54AM

          Or, as said above you could use the actual earth as control and the models as the experiments. Your issue solved and you know exactly which models are accurate (none of them) or to what degree they're inaccurate.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 16 2015, @06:06AM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 16 2015, @06:06AM (#145514) Journal

            Or, as said above you could use the actual earth as control and the models as the experiments.

            The models are the hypotheses, not the experiments.
            Nature have a habit to not care a iota about the accuracy or precisions of one's models - and experiments always involve poking nature with a stick, see what is doing (well, except "thought experiment" which usually result in mental situations of undead cats and thermal or other type of daemons).

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @11:18AM

              Right but we're specifically talking climate prediction here. If you can't accurately and to a known precision do so, you've no business doing so and calling it science.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 16 2015, @09:25PM

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 16 2015, @09:25PM (#145828) Journal

                No matter what topic or area of science we talk about, please keep in mind the following points :

                1. the scientific method aims to provide a rational explanation for observations of facts in the nature - no matter if those observation are derived from experiments or not (true, repeatability of those facts or observations is a must)
                2. the models/theories/etc are not experiments, they are hypotheses.
                3. science accepts the models/theories/explanations may be wrong, sometime with unknown degree of certainty (Newton was pretty sure his gravity laws where 100% correct). The only certainty the science offers is: if later, we discover facts that contradict the model, we'll improve it or propose another

                Otherwise, I'll suspect you of "cognitive dissonance" when it comes to climate change topic (i.e. strong bias with post-factum rationalization)

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17 2015, @01:22AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17 2015, @01:22AM (#145931)

                I've seen your scripting, why haven't you written a macro to regurgitate your bullshit yet? Even your keyboard is sick of your pointless obstinacy.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @04:13AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @04:13AM (#145473)

          Oh, great, now we are actively attracting deniers?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Monday February 16 2015, @04:38AM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <reversethis-{moc ... {8691tsaebssab}> on Monday February 16 2015, @04:38AM (#145482) Journal

      Just wanted to add that it is a "hard green core" but that is money green. [nakedcapitalism.com] Sadly too many that are for AGW don't seem to realize there is a REASON why the ONLY "solution" we get is carbon indulgences and that is because certain powerful groups and individuals will make out like bandits [forbes.com].

      So just remember that it isn't "the big bad oil against the poor environmentalists" its "one group of 1% bloodsucking leeches against another group of 1% bloodsucking leeches" and NEITHER really give a single fuck about the planet, its all about their stock portfolios.

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
  • (Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday February 16 2015, @03:20AM

    by Hartree (195) on Monday February 16 2015, @03:20AM (#145455)

    Judging by the threads here and on Slashdot (as well as comments on news sites), it depends strongly on whether they agree with whoever is doing the calling.

    Enlightened, well informed, realistic, etc. If they agree.

    If it's someone who disagrees, most are relatively charitable, and consider them to only be slightly more heinous than child molesters.

    Of course, if the comment is anon, all bets are off, and Godwin's law will be invoked nearly immediately.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @04:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @04:15AM (#145476)

      {putting on AC} Hartree, you Nazi! There, we got that out of the way. Carry on.

      • (Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday February 16 2015, @04:45AM

        by Hartree (195) on Monday February 16 2015, @04:45AM (#145485)

        Actually, I fancy myself more of a "complete kneebiter", but there's no accounting for taste.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @05:31AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @05:31AM (#145504)

          There's a Godwin's Law for "complete kneebiter"? Well, at least I learned something from this complete flamefest!

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @03:45AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @03:45AM (#145462)

    Climate has always been changing.

    Where the difference is is when green groups try and take a neutral sounding word and then try to own it.

    If anything, the people who choose to use "Climate Change", which to everyone before 2012 meant natural variation, when they are talking about Man made global warming or man made global cooling.

    Otherwise we're all debating semantics.

    Meanwhile we should stop using extreme green ideology to describe human's who disagree with the extreme, human hating ideology.

    If this was about science, then skeptics would not be vilified.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @03:45AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @03:45AM (#145463)

    I don't mind that some political stories get posted here, but this is a blatant trolling flamebait. LamX, ask yourself - are you doing the right thing?

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by gman003 on Monday February 16 2015, @04:12AM

    by gman003 (4155) on Monday February 16 2015, @04:12AM (#145472)

    There are multiple parts to global warming.

    First, there's the data. The world IS getting warmer. If you refuse to accept this, you are, quite simply, a denier. You can't look at the numbers steadily increasing and then claim that they aren't going up.

    Second, there's the hypothesis that it is caused by human release of CO2 and CH4. This is extremely well established, enough that, unless you have evidence support for your own alternative hypothesis, I'm going to have to call you a denier instead of a skeptic, particularly when you lack scientific training in the field.

    Third, there's the proposed courses of action. There are problems with most plans (I do not like cap-and-trade, seems like rent-seeking to me), but every climate scientist agrees that we need to do *something*. Arguing against *specific* plans to combat global warming is within the bounds of skepticism, although just barely since it's more an issue of economics and law than of science (no, economics is not a real science).

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @04:28AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @04:28AM (#145481)

      What about water vapour? Water vapour is the largest green house gas. If man made global warming is happening, then why not include water vapour?

      How many man made pools and damn's have been erected in the last century? Each one providing extra additional water vapour to the 'green house' effect.

      Why arent we banning pools?

    • (Score: 1) by BK on Monday February 16 2015, @05:41AM

      by BK (4868) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 16 2015, @05:41AM (#145508) Journal

      First, there's the data. The world IS getting warmer. If you refuse to accept this, you are, quite simply, a denier. You can't look at the numbers steadily increasing and then claim that they aren't going up.

      Agreed. For some data sets. Certainly true for the entire period where satelites have been available and equipped for measurement of 'global temps'. But that isn't as long as you probably think.

      Second, there's the hypothesis that it is caused by human release of CO2 and CH4. This is extremely well established, enough that, unless you have evidence support for your own alternative hypothesis, I'm going to have to call you a denier instead of a skeptic,

      I should call you names then as well. My hypothisis is that CO2 etc. cause some change and are among the influences on climate leading to change. One of the reasons why climate modeling is so unreliable at present is that the values and significance of all of the inputs have not been settled. Any other conclusion, including yours, is unsupported by the data.

      You'll think I'm beng unfair and that what I said is what you really meant. But you're wrong. There is real debate as to the magnitude of the variables and their overall influence. The conclusion that AGW is real but (still now) insignificant compared to other factors is legitimate and explains the systematic failure of predictions that assume otherwise.

      particularly when you lack scientific training in the field.

      Only the priesthood may interpret the holy works. I hope there's a neat latin name for that fallacy. But, it so happens that my degree is in atmospheric science (even though I do something else now) and I deem myself worthy.

      Third, there's the proposed courses of action... every climate scientist agrees that we need to do *something*.

      I think you've mistaken the political scientists (who know never to let a crisis go to waste) for the climate ones. Climate scientists spend most of their time collecting and analyzng data and trying to learn about the climate and how it works and to make predictions. Their predictions are almost always wrong and they know it. It's an inside joke that they (and meteorologists) are uniquely positioned in society such that they still get to keep their jobs even though they are wrong more often than they are right.

      The climate scientists you hear / see / read in the news have embraced advocacy over science. Both are full time jobs and they've chosen... Whatever their training, they, like me, now do something else.

      --
      ...but you HAVE heard of me.
      • (Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Monday February 16 2015, @06:24AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Monday February 16 2015, @06:24AM (#145516) Journal

        Only the priesthood may interpret the holy works. I hope there's a neat latin name for that fallacy.

        Argumentum ad sacerdos? Don't find that one. Just a variant of argumentum ad verecundiam, appeal to inappropriate authority. But it does beg the question. The question is: why is the authority an authority? Well, it must be because they know what they are talking about. But to know that, we would have to know what they know, and thus would not need to appeal to them as an authority! So this is where the deniers are, they are rejecting authority because they do not understand what the authorities are telling them, and it goes against their own financial interest. In other words, they do not know what they do not know. Socrates said some things about such people. They killed him for it. Then they all died from _global warming_, I mean, Romans.

        --
        Runaway: Mentally Unfit!
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday February 16 2015, @07:08AM

    by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 16 2015, @07:08AM (#145524) Homepage Journal

    Here's a comment from the dark side. I consider the entire AGW mess to be bad science at best or a political money/power grab at worst. The thing is, when people hear that, they aren't hearing what I am actually saying:

    - Is the planet getting warmer? Of course it is. The planet has spent the last 200 years or so coming out of the little ice age. In addition, there are various natural cycles that affect climate. CO2 may also play a role, though I am unconvinced by the current science (see below).

    - Is it a great idea to burn up all of our fossil resources, and to put a pile of CO2 into the atmosphere? Of course not. It's a waste of valuable feedstock, and however much confidence I have in the robustness of negative feedback cycles that drive climate, carrying out uncontrolled experiments on our only planet is not the very smartest thing we could do.

    So I don't doubt "climate change", and I'm not for burning piles of oil and coal, but I am still a "denier", because the "warmist" crowd is full of crap. Specifically:

    - They ignore the clear historical fact that the planet has been warmer in the past several thousand years, and that those warm periods have corresponded with "good times" in human history. The "Medieval Climate Optimum", before that during the height of the Roman Empire. Warmer may actually be better for the planet overall - nothing grows under a glacier - but having this discussion is sacrilege.

    - They make claims of catastrophic, irreversable warming. Yet in geological times, the planet was immensely hotter with immensely higher CO2 levels. This makes it clear that negative feedback cycles prevent runaway warming.

    - They alter the raw historical temperature data to bolster their cause, with inadequate justification and secret algorithms. In the case of the CRU, they then manage to lose the original, unadjusted data, and no longer have any record of exactly what adjustments they made. Nonetheless, the altered data is used as the basis for modeling and prediction. This is fraud, not science.

    - Essentially none of the models or serious predictions have been born out by reality. Temperatures have not risen as predicted, number and severity of hurricanes has decreased, arctic ice has not disappeared, etc.. Look back at the original predictions made 10, 20 or 30 years ago - the accuracy rate is zero.

    - When some of us complain about the above, they start ad hominem labeling ("denier") rather than addressing the very serious problems in their methodology.

    That's my view of the situation...

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @07:38AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @07:38AM (#145535)

      Denier!!!!
       

      When some of us complain about the above, they start ad hominem labeling ("denier") rather than addressing the very serious problems in their methodology.

      Your mistake is to think there is a methodology. Methodology is not what you think it is. Do not try to change the methodology, for there is no methodology, and that would be impossible, since we only have one earth and no control. And since we have no control, it is in g-d and Exxon's hands. You denier, you!

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @10:19AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @10:19AM (#145560)

    Of course we should use the word deniers. Or even better, call them infidels. That would send the same message even clearer. That this is about belief.

    Labelling them sceptics would give the appearance that science is somehow involved in the global warming discussion, and that would go counter to all the efforts to remove any appearance of science.

    The words you use send a message. Make sure the message is the one you want to send.

  • (Score: 1) by fatuous looser on Monday February 16 2015, @05:28PM

    by fatuous looser (2550) on Monday February 16 2015, @05:28PM (#145713)

    deriders
    debunkers

  • (Score: 1) by fatuous looser on Monday February 16 2015, @08:39PM

    by fatuous looser (2550) on Monday February 16 2015, @08:39PM (#145811)

    Here's a fun WordPerfect macro to put the subscript in every instance of CO2:

    PosDocTop ()
    SearchFindWholeWordsOnly (Yes!)
    SearchCaseSensitive (No!)
    OnNotFound (CO2done)
    MatchPositionAfter ()
    SearchString ("co2")

    Label (CO2fix)
            SearchNext (Regular!)
            SelectCharPrevious ()
            AttributePosition (Subscript!)
            SelectWord ()
            ConvertCaseUppercase ()
            PosWordNext ()
    Go (CO2fix)

    Label (CO2done)
    SearchFindWholeWordsOnly (No!)
    MatchSelection ()

    Enjoy.

  • (Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Monday February 16 2015, @11:51PM

    by wantkitteh (3362) on Monday February 16 2015, @11:51PM (#145893) Homepage Journal

    ...of dirty socks.

  • (Score: 1) by zraith on Tuesday February 17 2015, @02:07PM

    by zraith (112) on Tuesday February 17 2015, @02:07PM (#146111)

    Here is a little fun article if you're bored:
    http://www.dedoimedo.com/physics/global-warming.html/ [dedoimedo.com]