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 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.