Climate Scientists Debunk 'Point of No Return' Paper Everyone's Freaking Out About:
On Thursday, a new study came out warning that even if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide, the world has reached the "point of no return" for climate change. The paper claims that's because Arctic permafrost — carbon-rich, permanently frozen earth made of rocks, water, and dead wildlife — is melting irreversibly, and it could continue to heat the planet for centuries by releasing carbon dioxide. Terrifying, right?
The only solution, the authors indicate, is to suck carbon out of the air with carbon capture, which is yet unproven to work at scale, or to employ even more dangerous geoengineering technologies. The study's results and conclusions have been covered widely and a bit breathlessly, but here's the thing: The analysis has some big problems.
"To be frank, the paper is crap that should not have passed any competent peer review," Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and energy systems analyst, said. "It's an interesting thought experiment, but its results should be taken with extreme scepticism until more complex Earth System Models produce similar results."
Referenced Report:
Jorgen Randers, Ulrich Goluke. An earth system model shows self-sustained melting of permafrost even if all man-made GHG emissions stop in 2020 [open], Scientific Reports (DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-75481-z)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @03:11PM (42 children)
This is news to no one with a brain. We knew that the panic lobby was drumming shit up to push their global socialism. Now that they have covid, they think they dont need the carbon monster anymore.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @03:44PM (6 children)
Beijing Biden will facilitate the Great Reset for the Chinese century.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @04:44PM (5 children)
It looks like Moscow Donald has successfully deflected the attention away from his master Putin. At least for the intellectually inferior part of the population that still supports him.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @05:00PM (1 child)
We had investigation into Russia collusion. Nothing found.
Democrats fighting audit of an election when there is more evidence of irregularities than russiagate. Democrats fighting election observers. Democrats fighting signature verification.
If Beijing Biden won with historic numbers, what is wrong with auditing that to give him legitimacy?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @06:24PM
Oh yes, that report which was minimized by Barr, which explicitly said it does not exonerate Trump, and actually names Trump multiple times as a limely co-conslurstor. Whrn adked if he could bring charges Mueller referred to Barr's memo that a sitting prez can't be indicted.
You chuckle fucks are so brainwashed it really isn't funny. Your vompadres are openly advocating treason and overthrowing our democracy. Thanks for i forminh us the crazy is alive and wrll in the US.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Monday November 16 2020, @05:46PM (2 children)
You mean Mr. Secret Chinese Bank Account is trying to project his China stink onto his opponent.
Who could have possibly seen that one coming?!?!?!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @09:34PM (1 child)
you the super secrete bank account on the tax returns laked to NYT that they reported on in response to hunters business dealings in china measuring in the billions after flying into china with daddy on air force 2?
you are being lied to by the media.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2020, @12:20AM
OK Liar
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday November 16 2020, @04:40PM
Warning: while now it's something thrown at the wall see if it sticks, the scientists don't exclude a situation in which it actually sticks.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by meustrus on Monday November 16 2020, @05:01PM (23 children)
I'll say this nice and loud so that maybe you can hear.
ONE BAD ANALYSIS DOES NOT INVALIDATE AN ENTIRE FIELD OF RESEARCH
THE CRITICS ARE NOT OUTSIDERS, THEY ARE OTHER CLIMATE SCIENTISTS WHO AGREE WITH THE UNDERLYING HYPOTHESIS OF ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE
SCIENTIFIC DISAGREEMENT IS PROOF THAT THE REMAINING RESEARCH IS LIKELY CORRECT
DISAGREEMENT IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS
--
I swear, every time one bad paper gets thrown out, the right-wing trolls always come along to sell their political message. These scientists aren't on their side, but they don't care.
This kind of politics pushes scientists to support all research that supports their political position, even when they know it's wrong. Otherwise, their criticism will be used as proof that everything else they believe in is wrong.
Ironically, that's exactly what the trolls accuse the scientists of doing. It seems to be a trend that right-wing trolls accuse the other side of doing something nasty, then do everything in their power to make sure that the nasty thing becomes standard operating procedure for both sides.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday November 16 2020, @05:06PM (20 children)
Well, what would you do if you'd made it a point of political honor to defend a position that's clearly and unambiguously factually incorrect?
Are you telling me you'd argue in good faith all the time, if you were as dumb and wrong as these idiots? No, you'd do the sensible thing and engage every well poisoning, appeal to personal incredulity, and red herring you could find.
And then you'd wait for the deserved personal attacks to come in and scream about ad hominems.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Monday November 16 2020, @06:11PM (19 children)
I'd like to think I'd take a look around and realize that conservative parties in basically the rest of the world have admitted defeat on that particular front and moved on with the rest of their agenda. And you know what? Those parties turned out just fine.
Apparently, when political parties admit defeat on unpopular ideas, it doesn't make them seem weak. It makes them seem sane. It makes them electable without having to mess with the election process. Changing your policies to match what most of your voters want is actually a really good move for almost every politician.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 16 2020, @08:11PM (18 children)
It's not the political parties that lose when Chicken Little wins. They can funnel that panic spending just fine.
Would voters want the hardcore environmental action going on now, if they truly understood climate change?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 16 2020, @08:49PM (17 children)
What hardcore environmental action?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 16 2020, @09:07PM (16 children)
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 16 2020, @10:23PM (15 children)
Oh, yes, I remember. You don't care if people in other parts of the world are having a hard time.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday November 16 2020, @11:16PM (10 children)
I say... (ummm, actually it's not me saying it)... let's move those people on higher ground.
How about relocate them in the Yellowstone Park, seems high enough for me.
Of course, khallow will be happy to support the cost of the relocation, such a trifle to be paid for the company they'll provide... (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Monday November 16 2020, @11:35PM (9 children)
Hell yes. It's not rocket science to prepare for the effects of global warming. And the biggest effect for the next century or two is that one might have to move to land that is a couple of meters higher.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 16 2020, @11:51PM (8 children)
So those Pacific Islanders will just need to climb trees? Not sure what 190 million Bangladeshis are going to do, as the don't have enough trees.
I guess they could move to Idaho.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday November 16 2020, @11:57PM
Yellowstone park? Pretty please? (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday November 17 2020, @03:02AM (4 children)
Or simply move somewhere else that isn't underwater. Pacific Islander lifestyles are no more worthy of protection than SUV owner lifestyles, and there are a lot more SUV owners.
It's not endangered lifestyles that are the problem here. The well-being of 7.8 billion people is at stake. And it remains that the case for catastrophic climate change is extremely weak while we have a 40 year history demonstrating substantial economic harm from responding to that alleged threat - that kills people (such as US's corn ethanol subsidies increasing the global cost of food or Germany doubling the cost of its electricity)! You're going to need more than a misguided guilt trip to convince me that there's a problem that justifies the costly responses. You're going to need evidence.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday November 17 2020, @09:30AM (3 children)
If that somewhere is in another country, you've got a major problem.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 17 2020, @01:32PM (2 children)
Looks like we have plenty of time to fix it. There's probably a century or more before any sort of large scale movement of people needs to occur. I think there's plenty of time to figure out how to move people across country borders.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday November 18 2020, @01:52PM (1 child)
I see. You aren't claiming that climate change isn't real, or that it isn't caused by humans. You aren't claiming that millions of people will not need to migrate away from entire countries that are going to be submerged under rising sea levels. You're claiming that:
1. Preventing climate change would be worse for us 1st-worlders than climate change itself would be, and
2. It's not going to be an issue in your lifetime anyway.
I notice a distinct lack of facts in your analysis. When you disagree with the scientific consensus, the burden of proof is on you. Do you have any evidence why this argument isn't just selfish wishful thinking?
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 19 2020, @01:42AM
If we don't fix these other problems, we are fucked, no matter what we do now about climate change. If we do fix these problems and do nothing about climate change, we're still way better off than we are today.
It's about the economy, stupid. If we get stoking this awesome economy we have, then almost everyone will be 1st-worlders in 50 years! Things have already improved a great deal [soylentnews.org].
I notice you don't notice. For example, a key argument [soylentnews.org] I made here, directly relevant to this story, is the repeated insistence that adaption and geoengineering are off the table. Here, there's plenty wrong with the study discussed in this story. But as I have repeatedly noted, when climate sensitivity is known only to a broad estimate of 1.5 C to 4.5 C per doubling of CO2, then that implies a good chance of a lot of committed climate change which hasn't happened yet. That's a fact. So is the observation that researchers drawing attention to climate change, refuse to acknowledge the implications of their own claims - such as the possible need for adaptation and geoengineering.
The above link to my journal about people ignoring the growing prosperity of the world (as well as many other improving conditions of humanity such as slowing population growth and declining deaths from war) and using dishonest metrics (particularly, wealth inequality) to downplay that prosperity contains a bunch of facts.
My facts speak for themselves. It doesn't matter how little you notice them. Once again, someone who would make the world worse off with their virtue signaling lectures me about my selfishness!
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday November 19 2020, @01:40AM (1 child)
Bangladesh is sinking due to tectonics. Ocean rise might speed it up, but they are going under either way. Wasting a lot of money and effort on carbon capture is going to leave less resources to help them.
But what if I disagree with the basic value judgement? I happen to think that more carbon in the air is a good thing. I think we should be aiming to stabilise CO2 at around 600 ppm. If that results in some global warming, well we will just have to learn to deal with Canada and Siberia not being quite so cold. Or maybe get into space and deploy some sunshades at L1.
200 million years is actually quite a long time.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday November 19 2020, @02:33AM
If Canada and Siberia release all the methane they have stored in their permafrost when it melts we might need to find a new home real fast.
Sunshades at L1 are science fiction.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday November 16 2020, @11:32PM (3 children)
Back at you on that one. Climate change mitigation causes more poverty than climate change does - just witness the futility of the various environmental treaties for glaring examples. And poverty is a huge driver for a variety of environmental problems like overpopulation, habitat and arable land destruction, pollution, and government corruption.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 16 2020, @11:53PM (2 children)
Environmental treaties have nothing at all to do with climate change mitigation.
We have currently, as a species made no effort at all to mitigate climate change.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 17 2020, @02:24AM
The Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement do. Unless, of course, you're going to classify them based on outcome. Then most climate change mitigation wouldn't be. You'd be begging the question.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 17 2020, @01:46PM
I'll note that you haven't shown that we need to.
As a species, we haven't made any effort to repel hostile aliens or breed pink unicorns either. But few, if any are concerned, because well, we don't need to. I grant that climate change is far more likely to be a serious risk to us in the near future than these other two things, but it remains that the evidence supporting the call for action is remarkably shoddy and blinkered.
As I've noted elsewhere, the claimed models predict that we may already be committed to warming beyond the thresholds that are claimed to be the start of catastrophic climate change with a good probability (I figured 20-40% at the time). Yet the proponents of these models assiduously avoid any talk of adaptation or geoengineering. That signals bad faith and deception to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @09:55PM (1 child)
The OP says it is bunk science. It doesn't say why or how it is bunk science. How many times in the scientific community has an upstart showed up, been laughed out of the room, and then later end up to be found right?
Though it is pretty suspicious considering that the only country to be attempting (or at least claiming to attempt) large scale technical approaches to sequestration just happens to be where they are from. My guess it is just a big pipe end stuck in the ground with a 5 watt speaker inside making whirring noises, and the whole thing is just a flashy public funding fraud. Funny thing about those, is they work kinda like ponzi schemes, in that you got to find new suckers to ensure the group-think and kick backs keep any practical analysis from being taken seriously.
Incidentally large scale sequestration is in fact being done, mostly in north china, and central africa. It is called planting trees. Though they are mostly doing it to reclaim desert. But potato potahto. Of course planting trees doesn't create as many kickbacks or as shiny new rube goldberg machines. So I can understand why people are fascinated.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday November 18 2020, @01:45PM
Yeah, I'm guessing the study was published to support those expensive sequestration projects. And yeah, planting trees is a pretty sweet way to sequester carbon that people will never do because there's no money in it. You want something done, you need a patentable idea with profit potential. Only then will you get the venture capital to pay for the lobbying to get the government to pay for it. Nobody pays venture capital for easy solutions with slim profit margins. Isn't capitalism a great economic system with no problems in any situation?
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @07:34PM (1 child)
I'm sorry we liberals were right again. Your boy lost, get over it! You tired of losing yet? Or are you still drinking the Trump-aid where up is down, right is wrong, and you should send all your monies for Trump's debt payoff?
We're so sorry, next time we'll try and get a pillow in front of your face before you punch yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @08:45PM
The weakness of the boogaloo movement clearly stems from poor diet. I look at fascism today, and what do I see? Deep fried butter, bleached flour bread, fried chicken, BBQ sauces that are little more than sugary tomato paste! Adolph Hitler understood the necessity of a balanced diet derived from plants and mushrooms. We will become enslaved to the hated enemy and the inferior races if we do not make conscious choices to improve ourselves beginning with diet. The master race must instead lead the world and demonstrate the power of proper nutrition!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Monday November 16 2020, @08:39PM (7 children)
Funny how ready you are to call scientists a bunch of liars, while showing such naive trust in oil business capitalists! Do you poodle much? Gotten any scraps from the table for your efforts, maybe a pat on the head and a "good boy!" from Master?
/s Executives would never lie nor cover up problems in their business! Especially not oil companies, oh no! /s
Tobacco executives said it. Said that nicotine is not addictive. Said that to the whole nation, while testifying before Congress.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 16 2020, @08:52PM (1 child)
And post about "panic spending" as if these guys are getting fabulously wealthy from grants.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 17 2020, @03:04AM
The EU, for example, spends tens of billions of Euros on climate change-related stuff. I doubt that's all going to researchers.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Monday November 16 2020, @11:39PM (4 children)
What trust, naive or otherwise? Funny how this same one side keeps coming up with the dumbest arguments like that we should trust group A because group B, who has absolutely nothing to with the situation, is somewhat more untrustworthy.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday November 17 2020, @02:36AM (3 children)
Absolutely nothing? Big Oil has absolutely nothing to do with Climate Change, is that what you're asserting?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 17 2020, @03:05AM (2 children)
They have nothing to do with the research of the story or its criticism. And really they don't have much to do with the debate over climate change at all.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday November 17 2020, @09:49AM (1 child)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4363ms4ogww [youtube.com]
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 17 2020, @01:01PM
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @03:33PM (6 children)
The word "scientist" currently appears on the front page of this website 11 times.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Monday November 16 2020, @06:01PM (5 children)
It's just a bummer that most of the comments in those stories are people saying that scientists are stupid and there is no objective reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @07:45PM (4 children)
If one scientist calls another scientist stupid, to whose authority do you and reality defer?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday November 16 2020, @08:04PM (2 children)
The one who presents the most compelling evidence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @09:08PM (1 child)
Perhaps then you should save your zeal for the evidence then. There are enough shallow "scientists say" stories that contradict each other from week to week to make your obsequiousness seem misplaced at best.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday November 17 2020, @02:46AM
As opposed to what? What politicians say? What businesspeople say? Journalists? Preachers? Generals in the military?
A "scientists say" story can of course seriously misrepresent what scientists actually said, or that the people who said something are in fact respected scientists or even genuine experts. But on balance, when scientists speak, we'd all do well to listen.
However, if that isn't good enough, try listening to farmers. Listen to the leaders of coastal cities. They can't wait for a silly argument over objective reality, they're already taking action. They have to.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday November 16 2020, @11:21PM
Only in your mind.
What they say is not "you're stupid", but "your model is so simplistic sand lacking predictability value, it's no different than a random choice; I can't in good faith recommend any actions based on it. Would you mind refining/confirming that model?"
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by frrubi on Monday November 16 2020, @04:07PM (14 children)
This article is bigger bullshit than the faked election.
(Score: 0, Troll) by ikanreed on Monday November 16 2020, @04:12PM (13 children)
Oh shut up, your demented rapist lost to the other party's demented rapist. Get over yourself.
You won. You got your racist right wing ghoul in the presidency either way.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday November 16 2020, @04:17PM (2 children)
Seems harder now to extract the scum.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Touché) by ikanreed on Monday November 16 2020, @04:34PM (1 child)
It does, indeed. I'm not thrilled with the democrats getting away with learning literally nothing from Trump's first win.
I'm also actually curious in a morbid way, whether the people saying Biden was damage control will be borne out at all. I admit it's kinda hard to go downhill from 2020. Which brings us back to the topic article's topic: year-round hurricane season is likely here to stay in that we'll see it happen like this every 3-5 years.
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Monday November 16 2020, @05:44PM
Nah, war and peace through appeasement could both easily cause 2021 to outstrip 2020 in short or long-term pain.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @04:33PM (7 children)
You seem upset. Did Biden sniff your child ?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday November 16 2020, @04:41PM (6 children)
I'm honestly not sure what reaction I'm supposed to have in the election that had people literally tell me to vote for "the lesser of two rapists" other than being annoyed and angry.
Would passive serenity about it help anyone in any way? My blood pressure's already suffering from my visceral hatred of hour long phone meetings that are the new normal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @04:49PM (4 children)
You should feel annoyed and angry, but at yourselves.
Because it's nobody's fault but yours if the only candidates that seem to make it out of the primaries are psychopaths and rapists.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday November 16 2020, @05:02PM
I mean, yeah, I have a pretty dim view of voters in this country, but I don't think it's unfair to say there are institutional forces at work within the US that drive voters to be even less sensible in their voting behaviors than their own individual flaws would independently cause. In fact, I'd say it's unfair to say that's untrue.
(Score: 3, Troll) by meustrus on Monday November 16 2020, @05:25PM (2 children)
I voted for Bernie in the Iowa caucuses.
Biden's supporters in my precinct looked like they had been bussed in from the nursing home. There weren't even enough of them to form a viable preference group (it's a caucus thing), so Biden got ZERO votes from my precinct.
Bernie was on track to win. Then South Carolina happened and ALL the moderates dropped out to back Biden right before Super Tuesday.
It was a shitty move they pulled, because all the Buttigieg and Klobuchar voters had very little time to research Biden. They just voted for him because their preferred candidate had endorsed him.
Then Biden had manufactured momentum. And for some reason, people like to vote for the guy they think is already going to win. I remember doing it for 4th grade student body president, because I didn't know either candidate. I wish people took this more seriously than 4th grade student body president, but I don't think most people do.
The justification for all this? African American voters. In the peculiar kind of racist politics that only Democrats can manage.
See, African American voters are what we call a "captured demographic". The GOP is inextricably connected to racism, if for no other reason than that the echoes of Nixon's "southern strategy" still bind American racists to the party. Very few African Americans, especially those that vote consistently, will ever vote for a Republican as a result.
So what do Democrats do? They trade African American votes like poker chips in the primary. They make a lot of hey about what African Americans want like it actually matters in the general election. They get away with it because Democrats want to be so woke.
Never mind the fact that it's always white people talking about what black people want. Never mind the fact that black voters largely vote strategically, not according to their personal preference, because that's how you don't get steamrolled by the KKK in local elections. Never mind the fact that listening to white people speaking on behalf of black people actually disenfranchises African Americans. Never mind the fact that at the end of day, those same African Americans who voted for Biden in the primary would have turned out for literally any Democrat running against Trump.
No, because Democrats feel so bad for the poor black person, they're willing to let some white talking heads tell them that because black people voted for Biden, he must be the best candidate.
--
No, this is not my fault. I voted for my guy. I did my part. It's not my fault that the political party schemed to disenfranchise socialist voters, AGAIN.
It just goes to show, you can't escape racism in American politics.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @07:45PM (1 child)
Ooh ooh! We've got another false flag bernie bro!!
Does deception ever make you feel bad? Or do you justify your lies somehiw? At first I thought you were modded unfairly, but then you started hitting on the "Ds are the real racists because reasons and trading black votes like pimer chips" lol WTF?
Then I kept reading and came across your (((glibalusts))) tag which is sad to see popping up again. Racists gotta dog whistle I guess, and project their own racism on to others so they never have to self-reflect or change their ways.
Top kek meustrus, keep the troll farm rolling.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday November 18 2020, @01:38PM
I'm not absolving Republicans of their form of racism. Given that it involves systematic terrorism, murder, and corruption of the law enforcement system, I think it should be clear to the casual observer which one is worse.
And I was under the impression that everyone knew what the (((triple parens))) meant. I'm not using it as a dog whistle, I'm using it to call out the anti-semitism of the counterargument which I went on to refute.
Politics is bigger than Democrat and Republican. There are some memes that have infected both parties, including bigotry. While I personally choose the party that expresses its bigotry by bartering black votes like poker chips over the party that expresses its bigotry by using the existence of black people to stoke violent fears, I will choose the former. But I'm still going to call out bigotry when I see it.
Given how politics works, calling out bigotry in the Democratic party might actually start to fix it if enough people do it. Remember, progressives are trying to out-woke each other all the time, especially at the national level. If enough of them figure out that talking over black voices is racist, they will stop eventually.
I mean, I would, if I could point at an African American voice on SoylentNews to come tell us how it really is. Or if I felt like searching for other articles instead of writing something myself, and honestly, I come to the comment section to practice writing more than anything else.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 16 2020, @04:53PM
What I can say about the hour long phone meetings is: the more pointless they are, the more I can "multitask" and divide my attention away from the low value meetings to other things besides "being present in a chair."
Even though I only live a 15 minute drive from work (like, stand up from my home office desk, walk to car, drive, walk from parking lot, sit down at work desk in 15 minutes or less), I am still saving 1+ hours per day (probably averaging 90 minutes a day, or ~360 hours per year, you might say 20% of my working time) of pointless arrival at the office for appearance's sake, which is a huge overall positive impact whether I devote that time to work, family, rest, or a division of all 3. Just not dressing for the office every day is huge.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @06:19PM (1 child)
OK Repedo
(Score: 1, Troll) by ikanreed on Monday November 16 2020, @06:30PM
Man, I'm a consistent democratic voter, and even given both that and trump, I voted for a third party candidate for the first time because Biden sucks so damned bad.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by oumuamua on Monday November 16 2020, @04:46PM (3 children)
To scientists:
This is normal science; a theory gets proposed and debated by the scientific community.
To the public:
These 'scientists' (a single group in their minds) keep changing what they say. Someone who keeps changing what they say cannot be trusted.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @05:20PM (2 children)
The second group of scientist that debunk the shit are real; the ones that write that shit are paid propagandist.
It's real easy, now pay attention:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDklwk7AgWM [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @06:28PM (1 child)
Why must idiots try so hard to valudate their idiocy? So tiring having to chase around ignorant trolls just to try and keep reality relevant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @10:27PM
Did your little brain explode? This is how science works. Name calling helps a lot.
And yes both sides are propagandists. Get smart and expand your mind. You'll feel better.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Monday November 16 2020, @05:19PM (5 children)
Naturally they can't allow a paper out there that says we have passed the point of no return. Cause if we have then there is nothing we can do and anything that we would do wouldn't matter. There are a lot riding on having the option to force people into a lot of weird things in the name of the environment that would all then just become pointless. Can't have that. Nobody would invest in wind/solar-power. Cause if it doesn't matter then we might as well just continue to build nuclear power, which is so much better and more efficient etc.
(Score: 2, Informative) by meustrus on Monday November 16 2020, @06:38PM (3 children)
Not sure what you're on about with the nuclear power. Radioactive waste disposal is a completely separate problem from carbon emissions from fossil-fuel power.
But you may be onto something with the politics. This paper said things are really bad, which to some brain-dead conservatives around here means it must be fake news. Climate change is a hoax because they want it to be, so anything that disagrees with it must be wrong. And the facts supporting them must be wrong, too.
But actually, the Illuminati would much rather we haven't passed the point of no return, because then mitigation is pointless. We all know what the (((globalists))) really want is to waste everyone's money on pointless mitigation. Except it isn't pointless according to the debunked paper. Actually, it promoted some extremely expensive, dangerous, and probably ultimately unworkable carbon reversal technologies that could bring us back.
Something isn't working here. This line of thinking isn't explaining what's going on, it's making it harder to keep track of all the extra players. We've lost track of science and we're talking about politics instead. We're treating researchers as if they and politicians are equally trustworthy. They're not.
I heard something very disturbing recently from a Trumper denying the election results. They said that if Trump says he won, they're going to believe Trump, not the media. Think about what that means. They trust a politician, unconditionally. Since when is that a good idea?
Politicians are supposed to listen to us, not the other way around.
Which brings us back to the scientists. Is it possible that they are faking the results to forward a predetermined political position? Theoretically yes. Is is as likely as a politician promoting lies to forward their political position? Absolutely not.
Listen, politicians can say anything they want. They aren't expected to back it up with evidence. They don't even have to p-hack. They just have to say it, loudly, with political allies backing them up.
Nobody cares what a scientist says without data to back it up. This article is proof of that: the author of the paper is flatly wrong. Anyone can verify it's wrong based on objective principals derived from formal logic. Fake news doesn't last long in science.
Look, I'm not saying scientists are always right, or that they never lie. We should still be careful with what they say. But we need to be more careful with what politicians say. It's vastly more likely for a politician to speak lies than just about anyone else. Why would you choose to let the politician tell you what to believe?
--
P.S. Just so we're clear, "politician" means anybody running for political office. Doesn't matter if they've been in politics for 40 years or if they woke up this morning and decided to run for president with no political experience whatsoever. They're all politicians. Don't make the mistake of thinking it's possible for someone to run for office as an "outsider".
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 16 2020, @11:43PM (2 children)
I think the "brain-deads" will prove to be correct. There's a remarkable lack of evidence to support the claims made by anyone predicting climate change gloom and doom in the short term.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday November 18 2020, @01:56PM (1 child)
Khallow, the only remarkable lack of evidence around in here is in every single one of your comments.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 19 2020, @01:50AM
There's a lot of shitty climate research out there which makes the same claims. What's different here is that this research advocates geoengineering. It's a long term threat to the climate change propaganda and strategy. Because once geoengineering is on the table, then why bother with costly and ineffective mitigation efforts like almost completely cutting off greenhouse gases emissions in the developed world?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday November 16 2020, @08:31PM
President Elect Joe Biden agrees with the usage of nuclear to combat global warming.
Lefties gave him crap for it but I'm with Joe on this one [counterpunch.org]
(Score: 1) by crahman on Monday November 16 2020, @07:32PM
I was going to write something sarcastic and perhaps even clever here, but when I read the previous responses I realized that serious commentators had already plumbed the depths of both.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday November 16 2020, @08:03PM (2 children)
While this paper probably is junk, it's worth remembering that the present day uncertainties of climate change, as presented to us, allow for such a scenario. As I have noted [soylentnews.org] before, there's already enough uncertainty in climate sensitivity - the amount of long term heating one gets from a doubling of CO2 which can range from 1.5 C per doubling to 4.5 C per doubling (with some modern models predicting up to 6 C per doubling, if I understand them correctly). Anything above 3 C per doubling already has enough long heating baked in that we'd exceed the 1.5 C warming above pre-industrial age threshold that we're supposed to work hard to avoid. At 4.5 C per doubling, we'll overshoot 2 C by a bit too (that's the older threshold that supposedly is a line we shouldn't cross).
So by the models of climate that we already have, this paper shouldn't be that extreme. I wouldn't put the confidence in the paper's claims that the authors do, but it is a natural conclusion to make that if the dire predictions of low levels of warming are correct, and we have a high climate sensitivity, then we'll need to do something about it other than near completely cutting greenhouse gases, either adaptation to the suck or geoengineering.
My take of course, is that they haven't even shown that there is a substantial net positive feedback due to the combination of weather cooling effects, green house gases sinks, and models of climate and economics that just haven't been tested against future data.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @08:50PM (1 child)
I dismiss your take out of hand, khallow! It is biased, and conflicted, and rancid! Please, stop telling us what you think! You haven't shown any reason why we should pay any attention to what you think about people who actually do science!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2020, @10:33PM
Goto a science forum then. This is normal people here. So are not as smart as you. Then come back and post like a normal person.
(Score: 1) by HammeredGlass on Monday November 16 2020, @11:50PM (8 children)
...made the error they argued against.
The problems with the study begin with its title, which refers to the “melting of permafrost.” That’s a red flag because as Merritt Turetsky, an ecologist who directs the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado, Boulder, noted, permafrost thaws rather than melting.
“Pockets of ice stored here and there within permafrost can melt,” she said. “But these are very distinct processes.” The distinction, she said, makes her think the researchers don’t really know what permafrost is.
.........
“Modern complex Earth System Models generally show minimal future committed warming after zero emissions, even taking our best estimate of future permafrost melt into account,” Hausfather said.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday November 17 2020, @01:06AM (7 children)
On that last point, I calculated [soylentnews.org] that we have seen about 1.5 C in short term warming per doubling of CO2 and CO2 equivalents emitted since the start of the industrial age as compared to the long term predicted 3 C per doubling (which could actually be much higher at 4.5 C per doubling). And CO2, the dominant component, doesn't go down that fast. So how are we going to see "minimal" future warming, if we've only seen half the long term warming we were expecting to see? My take is that if that is true, we should expect to see the better part of a degree increase from existing warming even if methane clears out as fast as expected.
This paper illustrates a serious problem. The basic model and the above climate sensitivity parameter allow a significant chance (I think 20-40%) for committed climate change that won't stop at the thresholds that have been recommended (1.5 to 2 C increase since the beginning of the industrial age). Yet most of these researchers refuse to consider the responses, should harmful climate change happen: namely, adaptation or geoengineering.
I think there's a simple explanation. Most of climatology funding depends on propagating the right narrative: namely, that stringent mitigation efforts are required. If adaptation and geoengineering were on the table, then there's a possibility that people would make the wrong choice from the funding sources' points of view. Thus, they can't afford to acknowledge the more extreme possibilities of their own models.
(Score: 1) by HammeredGlass on Tuesday November 17 2020, @04:42AM (6 children)
You didn't respond to what I said, but I will respond to what you said.
It's likely that it's already too late, and has been for many years, and we don't have any solution(s) that can come close to rectifying the situation.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change [ieee.org]
In other words, stop worrying and live your life.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 17 2020, @04:48AM (4 children)
Based on what evidence? I think there is a vastly more solid case that we aren't too late to solve overpopulation, but we need to accept environmental damage, including a substantial degree of global warming as part of the price paid to stabilize that more serious problem.
(Score: 1) by HammeredGlass on Tuesday November 17 2020, @05:03AM (3 children)
Do you read before responding to things or do you just spam your thoughts and ignore everything else?
--------------------------->
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change [ieee.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 17 2020, @12:53PM (2 children)
I think that's the profound dysfunction with things like your linked article above. They present a cool story, bro, BUT they don't demonstrate that the action they propose is better than doing nothing at all. I think that bears repeating. The case for vast climate change mitigation is completely unsupported.
Here's my alternate strategy. Sure, do low lying fruit like putting out coal fires (human-caused emissions that do nothing for anyone), but for the most part, heavily prioritize bringing the entire world, Africa included, into developed world status. Then in 50 years when that is mostly done, reevaluate the risks of climate change (among other things, seeing what of the present day climate change hysteria actually sticks). If at that time, we have evidence that something needs to be done, then do so. The world will be well-positioned by then both economically and by mindset (developed world people can afford to care about the environment and wealthy enough to do something about it) to do what it takes to fix climate at a desired set point.
The world is getting better at a substantial rate. I think in 50 years we genuinely will see the great majority of the world achieve developed world status (and that means living standards comparable to the best parts of the world in 50 years, not merely present day world). Let's not destroy that for imaginary dangers.
(Score: 1) by HammeredGlass on Tuesday November 17 2020, @01:01PM (1 child)
Thank you for letting me know I should ignore your gobbledy gook in the future.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 17 2020, @01:27PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 17 2020, @01:25PM
Then whose post did I quote? Yours. I indeed responded to what you wrote. If you want people to respond to the whole of what you write, rather than part of what you write, then only write one thing at a time.
I consider the "thaw" versus "melt" concern to be a red herring. The study is not more true or false because it doesn't use the preferred verb for permafrost thaw/melt.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2020, @08:40AM
That the only time scientists are skeptical, as they should be, of the reliability of climate models is when it would end the pattern, going on about 4 decades now, of "we're going to reach a point of no return in 10 years unless we engage in urgent action now". Finally saying we actually got there and need to look at solutions that actually have potential of being enacted (like developing scrubbing technology) immediately gets attacked from all angles.
It's weird.
I mean climate change is obviously happening but it seems that increasingly it's being used as an ends to a political means rather than something that should be studied and considered on its own.