Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Another Climate-Change Retraction

Unknown Lamer posted about 10 months ago | from the science-says-you're-doomed dept.

Earth 479

jamie writes "It seems every time someone twists global-warming science into 'good news,' a retraction is soon to follow, and so it must be for Slashdot. Yesterday, the conservative Wall Street Journal published yet another apologetic claiming 'the overall effect of climate change will be positive,' by someone who (of course) is not a climate scientist. Today, Climate Progress debunks the piece, noting 'Ridley and the WSJ cite the University of Illinois paper to supposedly prove that warming this century will be under 2C — when the author has already explained to them that his research shows the exact opposite!' We went through this same process last year, with the same author and the same paper, so it's pretty embarrassing that he 'makes a nearly identical blunder' all over again."

cancel ×

479 comments

Look over here, look over here! (5, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | about 10 months ago | (#44867691)

Anything to keep you from looking at the root cause of the problem. Pollution, waste, dumping, strip farming/mining, and so on and so on are never discussed. Problems that we see like the great pacific garbage dump are ignored, as are ocean dead zones and polluted water.

I don't believe 99% of what is paid to be published, because, well hell look who is paying for the media spin? The same people pushing more and more pollution in most cases.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44867713)

warming this century will be under 2C — when the author has already explained to them that his research shows the exact opposite!

So...over 2C?

Re:Look over here, look over here! (0)

chromas (1085949) | about 10 months ago | (#44867765)

That wasn't supposed to be a Reply. Sorry, s.petry. If it makes you feel any better, I'd help mod you up to eleven if I had points, because you're spot on.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44867737)

Your right, we SHOULD be listening to the people pushing for more taxes for the government instead, because they OBVIOUSLY have your best interest in mind.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 10 months ago | (#44867775)

Have you got a solution that doesn't involve regulation?

Re:Look over here, look over here! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44867819)

Yes. Adapt.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (4, Insightful)

EEPROMS (889169) | about 10 months ago | (#44867899)

ah, so build a house that can float and learn to wear gas masks, gotcha.

Randall says: (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 10 months ago | (#44868421)

Wait for it.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44867907)

There are hundreds of millions of people on this planet who have no legitimate prospects for "adapting" in time to avert catastrophe. Your flippant (and ignorant) proposal, if implemented, would lead to hundreds of millions of deaths. Or, it will lead to hundreds of millions of angry, desperate, poor people who are are going to force you to "adapt" to their needs.

Now, do you have something NOT ignorant to contribute to the conversation?

Re:Look over here, look over here! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44867917)

*There are hundreds of millions of people on this planet who have no legitimate prospects for "adapting" in time to avert catastrophe.*

Dr. Darwin to the ER, stat

Dr. Darwin to the ER, stat

Re:Look over here, look over here! (5, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 10 months ago | (#44868091)

If one reckless nation's environmental impact causes changes that will lead to deaths of people in other nations, it's a state-level version of negligent homicide.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 10 months ago | (#44868153)

Which makes it a blatant might-makes-right argument to suggest it's acceptable in any way to destroy the habitability of another country. There's no moral difference between killing with pollution and killing with bombs—although at least with bombs, only actual cockroaches survive.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44867953)

Or, it will lead to hundreds of millions of angry, desperate, poor people who are are going to force you to "adapt" to their needs.

(Shrug) They're welcome to bring a pitchfork to a gun fight.

Or, they could just move inland a bit, and enjoy the warmer, wetter weather.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 10 months ago | (#44867983)

Unless they're unlucky enough to live next to nicer areas where the locals won't let them in, or where desertification is picking up the pace.

You really are a simpleton.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44867991)

The reasons they don't live inland now could be that someone already lives there (and probably doesn't want to share), and/or the inland areas are not economically productive.

There are people who have already studied this in detail, and have evaluated the prospects of rearranging populations. It's just not feasible.

Do you have anything NOT ignorant to contribute to the conversation?

Re:Look over here, look over here! (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 10 months ago | (#44868147)

I don't think it's a matter of ignorance alone. It's ignorance and callousness. There's a certain breed of conservative who doesn't even try to had their underlying pathology. They're damned proud of it. They're the kinds of guys who buy small arsenals and fortresses in the hills and masturbate to the idea of an apocalypse where they get to shoot anybody in sight and declare themselves king of their domain.

Re: Look over here, look over here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868245)

You say all that as if it sounds bad!

Re:Look over here, look over here! (1)

mellon (7048) | about 10 months ago | (#44868381)

Guns are cheap. Your expensive guns might be better, but a thousand people with cheap guns will overrun you without difficulty.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868021)

I think the point is, if millions of high carbon Americans 'adapt' then catastrophe might be averted.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868189)

I challenge you to point to a instance of any person being unable to adapt to any consequence of AGW, let alone millions, or even hundreds of millions.
 
Where will your "hundreds of millions of angry, desperate, poor people" come from ?
 
I'm guessing you're concerned at sea level rise ? If so, will an extra few feet rise even be noticable over a century time scale ? Build a sea-wall or move inland. Mankind had done more with less technology in the past. Stop scaremongering.

Re: Look over here, look over here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868257)

Can't get you millions, but the population of the Maldives is above 300000.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 10 months ago | (#44867915)

I see. So your solution is to simply ignore the ecological catastrophe, fuck future generations (and even some current populations) and live with the consequences of a perfectly avoidable disaster.

In a way, you're even worse than the denialists. You have adopted an ideological position and have decided that maintaining it should trump any change in human behavior.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868043)

Simple calculations suggest it would cost 50 time more to mitigate any possible "global warming" than it would to simply adapt.
 
I suspect that I'd be wasting my breath suggesting you might want to spend even 5 minutes of your life investigating an alternative view: http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/
 
So yes, lets live with the (extremely unlikely) possiblility of "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming" and just get on with our lives. Your approach is to doom future generations of the entire planet to poverty in order to fight against something that isn't even a problem.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (-1, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 10 months ago | (#44868169)

It's amazing listening to people who think the only humans on the planet that count are the ones they can see from their front door.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868393)

You would doom the entire human race to poverty rather than use our resources to adapt. That's pretty Malthusian really isn't it. Your approach will kill far more people than mine.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (5, Funny)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about 10 months ago | (#44868187)

"Simple calculations suggest..."

Beware when the simple start calculating. It never ends well.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (2)

mellon (7048) | about 10 months ago | (#44868409)

Mitigating global warming is cheap. Just use less carbon. Adapting is expensive. How many Boulders, Joplins and so forth will we have to rebuild? The sad irony is that the carbon economy continues to sputter along not because it is cheaper than a clean economy, but simply because it is the incumbent, and the incentives favor it. Switching would certainly cost a lot of tycoons an easy fortune, but for the average Joe? Switching away from a carbon economy means more, better paying jobs. Who cares about the poor oil tycoons?

Re:Look over here, look over here! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868077)

There WOULD be money to do something, but your idiotic liberal buddies have run up the US debt to $16 Trillion, in the last 5 years printed $18 Trillion to help the economy grow a mere $1 Trillion. Your kids and grandkids are in so much debt that even if they are luck enough to get a high paying job they will still live in poverty. Your voting habbits have destroyed the ability for the world's largest economy to do anything about any problem whatsoever.

Its not us that going to fuck future generations, you already did.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 10 months ago | (#44868137)

Oh bullshit. The world's largest economy could afford to basically arm its allies in a world war. The world's largest economy could fund a pointless decade in Iraq.

Don't blame the "liberals" (who are hardly the only ones responsible for the debt), and don't act like the United States, if it had the will to do it, could make significant strides. After all, whatever the economy is being banged about with now, in a hundred years will seem laughable.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (0, Flamebait)

meglon (1001833) | about 10 months ago | (#44868161)

....and lets not forget, dumbfuck, that when Clinton left office there was a projected 10 year surplus of ~5.6 trillion dollars, and a national debt of ~5.7 trillion dollars. The first thing that fucknut Bush and the other anti-government dipshits did was piss away that surplus. Add in the two wars the put on the credit card, and the taxpayer money giveaway to big pharma... and what you end up with is a turnaround of ~16-17trillion dollars because stupid fucking conservatives ideologues can't be responsible and pay down/off the national debt.

Republicans INTENTIONALLY kept the debt, then piled onto it enormous amounts...and the only thing a fuckwad republican like you can do is blame someone else. Not all republicans are useless, but dipshits like you make all the normal ones look bad.

Conservatives hate this country. They have been actively trying to tear it to pieces for the last 30 years. Newt upped the ante in 1994, but the fucktards like you have gone so far overboard that Mussolini would be impressed by your complete fucking idiocy. How about, for once in your life, you let your nuts drop and try to take a little bit of responsibility for the complete fuck up that you obviously were party to.

We don't have a spending problem here in this country, we have a stupid fucking idiot republican in office problem.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (2, Informative)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | about 10 months ago | (#44868341)

....and lets not forget, dumbfuck, that when Clinton left office there was a projected 10 year surplus of ~5.6 trillion dollars

Can you point to the last year in which the national debt actually decreased - meaning we had an actual surplus? HINT: start with the Eisenhower Administration.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868209)

There WOULD be money to do something, but your idiotic liberal buddies have run up the US debt to $16 Trillion, in the last 5 years printed $18 Trillion to help the economy grow a mere $1 Trillion. Your kids and grandkids are in so much debt that even if they are luck enough to get a high paying job they will still live in poverty. Your voting habbits have destroyed the ability for the world's largest economy to do anything about any problem whatsoever.

Its not us that going to fuck future generations, you already did.

OMG I LOL'd

Re:Look over here, look over here! (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 10 months ago | (#44868237)

You may want to read this [zompist.com] , but I'd recommend waiting until your blood pressure goes down.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 10 months ago | (#44868063)

Yes. Adapt.

Yeah, right. Because so many companies and individuals are so good at long-term thinking and planning.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 10 months ago | (#44868191)

Giant sea walls involve a lot more taxes.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (2)

DogDude (805747) | about 10 months ago | (#44867997)

What's wrong with regulation?

Re:Look over here, look over here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868219)

besides that it doesn't work, isn't intended to work, and is specifically rigged against the 99%?

Re:Look over here, look over here! (1)

mellon (7048) | about 10 months ago | (#44868435)

It works pretty well if we pay attention. If we just sit around playing videogames, then yeah, it turns into a catastrophe. But pretty much anything works if we pay attention. Your argument is self-fulfilling—you are telling us we can't win, so there's no point in paying attention. That's exactly the wrong thing to do. It's almost as if you want regulatory capture.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 10 months ago | (#44868259)

Well, for starters, it prevents this [wikipedia.org] . As you can clearly see, only competition between companies trying to attract employees can improve living standards.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (1)

b4upoo (166390) | about 10 months ago | (#44868163)

Plague or total war might do the job but regulation is a far better idea.

Carbon tax (1)

Valdrax (32670) | about 10 months ago | (#44868225)

Have you got a solution that doesn't involve regulation?

Depends on what you call regulation. A carbon tax-and-refund scheme would let the market find a solution by attaching an appropriate price to an externality. That would be significantly less government interference than a cap & trade or straight up permit-based regulation scheme.

However, if "tax and let the market figure it out" falls into the camp of (evil) regulation, then no. It turns out that the main reason laws exist is to keep people from doing stuff that benefits themselves at the expense of others who can't in turn do anything to stop it without resorting to violence or other worse behavior.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44867795)

reading comprehension fail, he says that global warming is not the real problem, only a symptom and he doubts that this is a false flag operation to tkae your attention away from the problems he mentioned ... Sadly it seems like that tactics worked on you...

Re:Look over here, look over here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44867863)

You lost me at "Your", then I knew the rest of the message would be literally clueless. It didn't disappoint.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 10 months ago | (#44868109)

You lost me at "Your", then I knew the rest of the message would be literally clueless. It didn't disappoint.

s/then/at which point/

Correlation is not causation. At least the GP wasn't subscribing to logical fallacies but was instead using satire to make a point that everyone has an axe to grind, not just those who are directly paid to spin the story. Or did you miss that?

Re:Look over here, look over here! (1)

CauseBy (3029989) | about 10 months ago | (#44868305)

Hey, mods, can a bunch of you get together and mod parent +5, Insightful? Because he's right, if taken literally instead of sarcastically.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 10 months ago | (#44868015)

I don't believe 99% of what is paid to be published, because, well hell look who is paying for the media spin?

In this case, if you read both articles, it's hard to figure out which one isn't getting paid to publish. It's one crappy non-scientific angry opinionator against another.

Why are we getting articles here from politicians and bloggers? If we're going to get opinions, can't we at least get them from real [wsj.com] scientists? [huffingtonpost.com] We used to get stories on Slashdot when new studies were conducted. We don't need one every time some random person publishes their opinion (that's what the comments are for).

Re:Look over here, look over here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868133)

I don't believe 99% of what is paid to be published, because, well hell look who is paying for the media spin?

No the actual garbage is being paid to be published by the pigs in academia feeding at the trough of grant funding. They owe their continued existence to publishing more and more increasingly alarmist literature despite having zero evidence of a real problem. Their whole way of life depends on getting the gullible population to continue their funding, and Joe Public is easily scared by the bogeyman of global warming. Anything that attacks their belief system must be burned at the stake.

Re:Look over here, look over here! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868141)

I'd point to "disposable economy" as the root cause. While people buy a new widget rather than repair an old one, we get increased (wasteful) consumption, increased pollution etc, all so people can sell more widgets.

My $0.02 worth

Re:Look over here, look over here! (1, Interesting)

b4upoo (166390) | about 10 months ago | (#44868157)

All of the woes that you mention such as pollution are caused by excessive population. All the programs to try to hold the system together will do little good unless we apply very strict birth control measures to our nation as well as the rest of the world. Then those programs would work out reasonably well.
          The people in Boulder Colorado are feeling global warming rather directly today. The people at the Washington Naval Yard are feeling the consequences of over population as well. Dense populations yield insanity, addictions and violence. Yet how can a politician hold office if he dares to challenge the true causes of the mess?

Re:Look over here, look over here! (5, Insightful)

turbidostato (878842) | about 10 months ago | (#44868419)

"All of the woes that you mention such as pollution are caused by excessive population."

That explains why India pollutes more than USA.

Oh, wait!

No, I was joking: It's progress not population.

That explains why Denmark pollutes per capita as much as USA.

Oh, wait!

Re:Look over here, look over here! (3, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | about 10 months ago | (#44868441)

The root cause are not those. The root cause is that there is profit to be made, and that profit justifies things like replacing cleaner transportation alternatives [wikipedia.org] with polluting ones.

There is just no profit in building an economy over renovable energies. The pipe that make everything run must be controlled, specially if is done by a few (and if new players come in the government is always willing to help them [theguardian.com] ). And if that non-renovable but tight controllable energy is polluting, too bad, but they will do anything in their hand to avoid that the dependence on them weakens.

Remember folks: (2)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about 10 months ago | (#44867723)

Just because x can lead to benefit y does not imply x is over all beneficial. Yes, there are a few benefits to climate change. That does not take away from the fact there are a whole legion of those-things-that-are-the-opposite-of-benefits. Seems like this needs to be explained anybody does research indicating the former - not that I'm blaming or finding the said scientists at fault for it. Same goes for other disciplines too.

WSJ and Contrarianism (1)

Gim Tom (716904) | about 10 months ago | (#44867727)

Consider the WSJ position on an issue and do the opposite. You will then more likely be closer to the truth and if money is involved it will be more profitable. It has for me.

Re:WSJ and Contrarianism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868267)

You think there's a difference between the people buying the NY Times and WSJh

"pretty embarassing"? more like "pretty revealing" (4, Funny)

unclepedro (312196) | about 10 months ago | (#44867731)

"Whoops! I meant to make the same argument with a *different* paper!"

Re:"pretty embarassing"? more like "pretty reveali (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44867749)

Bloodninja? Is that you?

repeating the mistaken info (1)

themushroom (197365) | about 10 months ago | (#44867767)

Perhaps the author is a Birther? :)

Freeman Dyson (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44867735)

Freeman Dyson
who lists climate scientist on his CV, and,
who is the greatest polymath of the age, and,
who is pretty much the smartest person never to win a Nobel, says,
"The polar bears will be fine".

Re:Freeman Dyson (5, Informative)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 10 months ago | (#44867807)

He also admits, he doesn't know what the heck he's talking about:

"my objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151 [yale.edu]

He's not an expert on the current science. Taking his advice is like asking a guy who wrote COBOL in the 60's about something like open stack.

Re:Freeman Dyson (2, Insightful)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | about 10 months ago | (#44868355)

When "scientists" don't behave like scientists (and Dyson should know how a scientist behaves), it should give EVERYONE pause.

Re:Freeman Dyson (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 10 months ago | (#44867869)

He's a physicist, not a climatologist. He certainly would be better in some respects at assessing the models, but nowhere near as competent as, oh, I dunno, a climatologist. On the flipside, if a climatologist starts making grand declarations about quantum electroydnamics, I'm sure I'd be turning to Dyson for a rebuttal.

Exact opposite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44867813)

so his paper said it would be "Over -2C"? That would be the exact opposite "Under 2C".

Maybe "exact opposite" was a poor turn of a phrase? (what does jamie mean, exactly?)

"blunder" is far too kind a word for it (5, Insightful)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about 10 months ago | (#44867833)

Black lie is what I call it. These scum knew what they were doing. They've been told, repeatedly, that they are wrong and why they are wrong, and they just dismiss and ignore everything and say those lies again anyway. They were printing propaganda. Throwing raw meat to the conservatives. That's all the WSJ's opinion section has been since Murdoch bought it.

It's like the black knight skit in Quest for the Holy Grail. "It's only a flesh wound" and "The earth has had worse." Won't quit fighting even after his legs have been cut out from under him.

Re:"blunder" is far too kind a word for it (5, Funny)

cusco (717999) | about 10 months ago | (#44867971)

That's pretty much all the WSJ opinion page has ever been, at least since the 1980s when I used to steal it. The newspaper itself could have a great in-depth and well-researched story saying X, and on the opinion page the bloody editors would declare Y. George Will used to be particularly bad at doing that. He could lay out all the facts that would show why one of Ronnie Raygun's programs were going to be yet another disastrous unending money pit of fail, and then declare that the program should be supported 111%. All Murdoch has managed to do is get rid of some of the good investigative reporters that it used to have and change the format to something that no one likes.

Re:"blunder" is far too kind a word for it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868301)

Did you read the article? I thought the WSJ article was pretty good as a summary of a lot of different data points. This critique is citing one possible error in the story that wasn't the main point. I read the article on Friday so I can't remember exactly but I think the point about 2c was a secondary opinion on the statistical likelihood of the earth temp rising above that.

You should read the article. It might change your mind about the current anthropogenic global warming summaries that rely on data that has proven to not fit our current climate.

No such thing as 'man made global warming' (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44867873)

Which is why the criminals responsible for this whole charade renamed it 'climate change'.

www.climatedepot.com

www.wattsupwiththat.com

Still, let's not let the facts get in the way of your insane, 'climate change' belief system, isn't that right, Slashdotters...

What I'd love to see (1)

onyxruby (118189) | about 10 months ago | (#44867883)

What I'd love to see is reporting on climate change that presented facts without the hyperbole. I'm reasonably certain that I'm far from the only person that's fed up with having hyperbole rammed down my throat and would really rather just have the actual "science" reported.

/rant off.

Re:What I'd love to see (0, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 10 months ago | (#44867927)

Then go read the fucking science. Jeezus, what you, a fucking infant?

I haven't read anything by the likes of Al Gore or Green Peace in the better part of a decade. I go to the research, and so can you, if you'll just spend the five fucking minutes it takes to find it.

Re:What I'd love to see (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868061)

I read the 'fucking science'.
I spend a lot more than 'five fucking minutes' reading it.
I am not an 'fucking infant'.
Maybe the same is true for onyxruby, I do not know him.
I think he has a point.
But the topic is climate change, not sex.
If you (correctly) feel you do not have any arguments, try not use that word over and over again.
It really is not a replacement for arguments and/or opinions.

Re:What I'd love to see (-1, Troll)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 10 months ago | (#44868125)

I'm going to be blunt. I don't believe you. I don't think you have read the science.

Re:What I'd love to see (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868167)

Is disrespecting your business?
You are right indeed about being blunt.
But you really do not need to mention that.
That was already clear.
But as said, it's not a replacement for arguments and/or opinions.

Re:What I'd love to see (1)

seyfarth (323827) | about 10 months ago | (#44868317)

At least MightyMartian has a name and is not an anonymous coward. It is disappointing to see such silly tirades from someone who is anonymous and probably just enjoying the stupid arguments. Go away or get a life.

Re:What I'd love to see (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868411)

So, you respect the just-as-anonymous-but-willing-to-sign-up-for-yet-another-message-board-user's silly tirades and the stupid arguments they made in the first place? And then unironically make your own silly tirade with your own just-as-anonymous-but-willing-to-sign-up-for-yet-another-message-board-username because you think it makes you special. Great show!

Re:What I'd love to see (2)

onyxruby (118189) | about 10 months ago | (#44868413)

If I wanted to read the science I would, and I have, it's something I have done for the last few decades, which is quite a few years before it was politically correct to do so. That isn't the point though, the point is that "science" isn't supposed to be politically charged, it's supposed to be "science".

Science, and reporting on science should rise about the type of petty hyperbole that I see on infecting many other types of reporting. When I read articles or studies about astronomy they tend to be fairly hyperbole free (unless it's an asteroid with the slightest chance of hitting the earth). The same thing applies when I read about almost any other subject that relates to science.

The point of reporting on science is that a reporter is reading through the studies (which number in the thousands, are quite dry reading and too often pay-walled) and reporting on what is new). This is their job and if I find something of interest that I can go and check out the source.

Now climb down out of your god damn ivory tower and get your nose out of the air back to the real world where the average person does not have the time to spend their day reading studies. Sit down, pause and think about it for just a moment and you just might realize that hyperbole free reporting is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for.

Re:What I'd love to see (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44867937)

If you want science read some articles with a fair number of citations. You won't ever get science out of journalists.

Re:What I'd love to see (1)

CCarrot (1562079) | about 10 months ago | (#44868201)

If you want science read some articles with a fair number of citations. You won't ever get science out of journalists.

Sometimes even that's not enough [slashdot.org] .

Re:What I'd love to see (1)

DogDude (805747) | about 10 months ago | (#44868007)

Re:What I'd love to see (1)

onyxruby (118189) | about 10 months ago | (#44868431)

Thanks!

Re:What I'd love to see (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 10 months ago | (#44868083)

If you want clarity in climate science then try browsing the articles on realclimate [realclimate.org] . Of course you could just read the IPCC reports, they are easy to find on the net too.

Re:What I'd love to see (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868179)

The IPCC reports based on data that was deleted instead of being risked for peer review? I'll get right on that non-peer reviewable research from a biased source that depends on gloom and doom for more funding.

IPCC raw data deleted despite FOIA requests for it [wordpress.com] . A question NO AWG supporter is able to answer.

Re:What I'd love to see (2)

CCarrot (1562079) | about 10 months ago | (#44868227)

If you want clarity in climate science then try browsing the articles on realclimate [realclimate.org] . Of course you could just read the IPCC reports, they are easy to find on the net too.

Thing is, I can't tell if you're a) trying to be funny, b) being sarcastic, or c) trolling.

My people meter must be out of whack today...

Re:What I'd love to see (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868249)

Of course you could just read the IPCC reports, they are easy to find on the net too.

Not to mention being completely out of date with current measurments and observations of the climate. You might as well read the tea-leaves in the bottom of your cup, or maybe the lines on your palm for all the good it will do you.
 
The IPCC is a joke. Their current predicitons have over-estimated the effect of increasing CO2 on temperature by a factor of 2 over the past 25 years. Real world measurements/observations are showing their climate models to be woefully incapable of predicting temperatures and yet you think this stuff is "science".

Re:What I'd love to see (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868097)

Climate "Science" isn't science though, it is religion. Mainstream media rarely reports on the science because the whole thing is founded on a belief system.
 
Real science is available if you're prepared to go out and look for it at sites like Bishop Hill and Watts Up With That, otherwise you'll just be spoon-fed the latest religious doctorine that epitomises up the whole AGW movement.

Re:What I'd love to see (1, Informative)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about 10 months ago | (#44868437)

http://realclimate.org/ [realclimate.org]

There is a wealth of real science out there. People just read tabloids like the WSJ and assume they are going to get solid science news out of it. That's like watching Fox News and complaining that there is no journalism alive in America.

Whose blunder is it really? (1)

multiben (1916126) | about 10 months ago | (#44867891)

it's pretty embarrassing that he 'makes a nearly identical blunder' all over again.

What's embarrassing is that you continue your association with an author who has shown himself to be of poor credibility.

Forbes, WSJ others (4, Interesting)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about 10 months ago | (#44867895)

Forbes WSJ FoxNews and of course all of wright wing talk/hate radio, and others , consistently misrepresent the facts of climate science, what climate scientists are saying and how climate modeling is done.

Either they're, for reasons unknown, persistent and unlucky victims of poor reporting, poor analysis and mistaken inference or there is a persistent and deliberate determination on their parts to knowingly and with malice of forethought lie about climate science to the American , British Australian and European public.

If it turns out it's the latter, we can ask some interesting questions., Since persuading people that climate change is not as the scientists represent it -a ticking time bomb we are running out of time to defuse and one whose consequences include the mass death of humans, is lying about climate science not the equivalent to shouting (no) fire in a crowded (and burning) theater?

If it is, then are they not already criminals and are they not already responsible for those deaths? I think this is called "manslaughter" and when the number of people you caused to die numbers into the millions, I think that's elevated to "crimes against humanity".

Of course the US will never go there, but what about other nations? Hasn't the US demonstrated that people who threaten Americans are subject to executive action irrespective of where they are or whether the host nation is inclined to turn them over?

Could China or Japan or Germany or Russia or any other country just legally and unilaterally decide that say, David and Charles Koch represent too much of a threat to human civilization to permit them to go on living? Would they be within their legal right to quietly see to it that the perps are silently and quietly and discretely brought to final justice?

And what about the money these organization make from their climate denialism? Isn't that money, even if it's been dispersed to their heirs and partners actually. ill-gotten gains and subject to something like international civil forfeiture? The money to cover the catastrophically high cost of attempting to turn back climate change at the last possible moment has to be extracted from someone.

Obviously this is all beyond the pale for the current times, but time change and when they change, attitudes change, often suddenly and dramatically. What was just an amusing thought experiment one day becomes harsh reality another.

Laws exist to make society livable. They are defined according and in reaction to the environment. If that environment changes dramatically, then we can expect that near future generations of people will look back see the times we are living in now quite differently than we do, just the way we look back on slavery as an abomination or the post WWII generation of Germans were completely appalled at what their parents had done.

Re:Forbes, WSJ others (5, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 10 months ago | (#44868173)

The same sort of lies were spread about smoking and cancer, the same (for hire) lobby groups were writing and distributing the anti-science propaganda. They dragged the tobacco CEO's into congress for a grilling. At the end of the day they were fined $500M, but still not enough to put them out of business and certainly no jail time for what was nothing short of fraud. The coal industry is an economic superpower compared to tobacco, they have been successfully fighting emission controls for over a century. They will not retire gracefully.

Re:Forbes, WSJ others (0)

b4upoo (166390) | about 10 months ago | (#44868235)

Yes slavery was an abomination. And freeing the slaves without providing for them was as evil as slavery itself. I have seen first hand the suffering of the former slaves in 1950s in the deep south. Freedom in abject poverty might even be worse than being a slave on one of the kinder plantations. We still have large numbers of black folks that need quite a bit of help to step into the present day world and fitting into the world of the near future will be even more difficult. There simply are no easy answers for our woes and miseries as a nation. If we had forced birth control that lowered our population size we might not be able to defend against foreign powers. Frankly America needs to have a far smaller population to have a decent quality of life for anyone of any race or ability.

Re:Forbes, WSJ others (3, Insightful)

drfred79 (2936643) | about 10 months ago | (#44868439)

The IPCC report that will be coming out by the U.N. is going to state that mass deaths were previously overcalculated. On the other hand, reducing our economic output to reduce carbon emissions will cause measurable levels of starvation and death due to cold weather and will affect the poor people the most. (Poor people pay a larger portion of their income for electricity than rich people. Incentivizing reduced electricity use and vis-a-vis carbon emissions through price controls hurts poor people.)

So who should I decide is correct? The WSJ, the IPCC, & Fox News or you? You're not even arguing with the most current data by groups you support.

Have you truly looked into contributions from oil companies or are you stating what you heave read. Did you know oil companies donate to groups like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club? Is it ok for them to donate significantly more to environmental groups than they do to Skeptical Anthropogenic Global Warming Research groups? Is that because you have decided, based on outdated and overstated data, that they are right?

Continue your rounding up of the witches. Everything that ends well starts with persecution of the opposition.

Positive (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 10 months ago | (#44868033)

Well it all depends on what you consider positive and negative. Warming overall, I imagine,would probably increase life density, and the complexity of a global warning weather system is probably likely to inspire species to improve over time, after the short term mass death.

It will be horrible for human civilization, but that is good for the environment as well.

Re:Positive (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868101)

Warming overall, I imagine,would probably increase life density. . .

Sounds like the imaginings of someone who doesn't live in the desert. You should visit one sometime. Bring water.

Most people never seem to appreciate the narrow band of possibility within which life is viable.

Re:Positive (0)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 10 months ago | (#44868217)

Warming does increase overall rainfall though, doesn't it? Obviously it's not good for the diversity of species or for humans, but wouldn't it lead to an overall increase in greenery?

Re:Positive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868337)

Warming does increase overall rainfall though, doesn't it? Obviously it's not good for the diversity of species or for humans, but wouldn't it lead to an overall increase in greenery?

It is not as simple as that. Greenery has evolved over thousands of generations to exploit generally narrow confluences of air temperature, sunlight, rain, ground water etc., not to mention other life forms -- plants, animals and especially insects. Wiping out diversity of species could result loss of plant life, which could lead to erosion, which could limit the emergence of new greenery to smaller areas, resulting in a lower abundance of greenery.

Re:Positive (1)

Valdrax (32670) | about 10 months ago | (#44868391)

It's not just a simple matter of "add water & CO2, get more plants." Increasing temperatures start to kill plants and animals that aren't adapted to the new temperature range. That starts knocking out portions of the food web, and ecosystems start to collapse. If soil cover is eroded by a lack of protective plants, increased rain will actually worsen matters as it gets washed away in floods (which will be more frequent without the "evening" effect of mountain snowpacks as slow-release water reservoirs).

Millions of years under these conditions could eventually lead to more jungles, but in the short term, deserts would dominate.

Re:Positive (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 10 months ago | (#44868145)

This is no different to declaring the charge on an electron to be negative.

J.J Thompson only declared the electron negative because he wanted the pointy end of his Duracell to be positive.

The really stupid thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44868119)

The really stupid thing is building your entire society around the idea that the climate will never change. Whether we cause it or not, or climate will change in spans of time that are relevant to human interests. Think of the current unwillingness to change as the first proper field exercise in dealing with it.

Lying (4, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | about 10 months ago | (#44868229)

The bottom line is that lying works when you are dealing with low-information people.

Conspicuously absent (1)

CauseBy (3029989) | about 10 months ago | (#44868325)

Where are all the normal Slashdot AGW deniers? Usually they'd be all over an article like this.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...