SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by BK on Monday February 16 2015, @04:15AM
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
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'm curious: start exactly what?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by gnuman on Monday February 16 2015, @05:41AM
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
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
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]?
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 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Monday February 16 2015, @08:21AM
The hockey stick graphs were no prediction, but a drawing of past data. And as such it certainly did happen.
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.
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.
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.
While not changing policy will only produce losers in the long run.
By the same logic I must conclude that there is an above average chance that your post was written by a self-serving prick.
Please show me where someone who asks questions is vilified on SN (note: claims disguised as questions don't count).
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".
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.
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
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...
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.
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
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
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.