Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:climate change deniers (you!) (Score 1) 375

Yeah, it's clear this is going nowhere. My attempts to address your other points are waved away as "deflections", any relevant studies are dismissed while you continue to make flat declarations of fact about your own opinions as if you think that's convincing, and you only really seem interested in arguing about the effectiveness of government, which clearly isn't an opinion that's going to change regardless of rational discussion. And you claim I'm not listening because I'm not focusing solely on that point, yet you've missed or ignored almost everything I've said about it. So have fun with all that.

Comment Re:climate change deniers (you!) (Score 1) 375

You have cited no research at all.

Every one of my links is well-sourced with numerous references to peer-reviewed research to support the argument that they (and I) are making. I'm not the one making completely unsupported assertions here.

the IPCC represents opinion, not fact

In your own opinion. In everyone else's, the IPCC's summaries and countless references to peer-reviewed research are a heck of a lot more reliable than some random web comment.

you are pointing to the 2007 report

Your point is? Would you like me to cite more cost-benefit research? There's plenty out there. Or perhaps you'd care to present actual evidence for a change?

That's an assumption you're making without any justification.

Well, only justified by the historical track record of successful government interventions in other emissions issues, as I stated further down. Where's the justification for your own assumptions?

you haven't cited any research

No, you've just dismissed and ignored it all.

putting solar cells on the roof and buying electricity from renewable sources

Good for you. Leaving aside all the people in rental properties, apartment buildings, shaded areas, multistory shopping malls, industrial factories, developing nations etc who can't meet their needs with solar cells, how many of them have any alternate options of renewable grid sources? What makes you so confident they will get an alternate option in any reasonable time-frame, if fossil-fuel companies are allowed to continue offloading their biggest costs?

The existence of externalities a century from now

Well, those and the hundreds of billions annually in health costs that I already mentioned.

even for RCP8.5, sea level rise by 2100 will likely stay below 3 ft, yet you conjure up disaster scenarios.

And you think 3 feet isn't a problem? The research I didn't conjure is concerned with rises beyond 2100 - if their model is valid, there could be far more drastic sea level rise over the next 500 years than was anticipated, to the point that almost every coastal city on the globe will be heavily flooded. I'd like to see that possible scenario avoided, and I don't share your faith that it'll automatically happen on its own.

making any other arguments irrelevant

And here you've lost me. Leaving aside the various other studies that disagree with you, your apparent insistence that all other human, social, and health costs, risks & uncertainties, etc are completely valueless in your cost-benefit analysis makes any further discussion fairly pointless. If discounted direct costs are your only metric for action then I don't see that we can agree on anything.

I'll leave you with this: most current power stations will EOL sometime in the next 30 years anyway, and will need to be replaced. So long as they are required to be replaced with low- or zero-carbon alternatives, be they wind, solar, nuclear, or whatever, then we will have eliminated a lot of our CO2 emissions at minimal additional cost, especially considering that renewables have low ongoing costs. Similarly, most vehicles will be up for replacement in much the same time frame, and mandating most replacements to low- or zero-carbon (EV, hydrogen, biodiesel, etc) would also have a relatively low impact. When you factor in the secondary benefits such as eliminating the huge health and pollution costs from coal and ICE emissions, it's hard to argue that we won't be better off, financially and socially. Add further benefits such as net-positive efficiency gains and reduced climate damage, and to me it looks like the complete opposite of "wrecking the economy".

Comment Re:Queue the world ending in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... (Score 1) 375

I can look at first hand experience because we have had 1C of warming over the last 150 years.

Leaving aside what you think "first hand" means, you're dismissing scientific studies in favour of the entirely unsupported belief that "what's always happened will continue to happen". Does that sound wise to you?

An actuarial cost-benefit analysis is not part of science and should be done by economists, not scientists

Like this one, or this one?

indeed for the last 12,000 years given it is an interglacial

Except that it's been slowly cooling for the last 8,000 years. The warming phase only lasted 4,000 years, and it's been all downhill since then - right up until the moment we got involved, when the trend suddenly changed dramatically.

The lack of predictive ability belies that.


Comment Re:Hockey Stick is NOT the full story (Score 1) 375

The reconstructions you are left with show the temp since 1900AD rising, but still lower than 1400, 1000, 800 and close to 600 and 400.

Huh? The only proxy that gets above the 0 mark before modern times are the EIV reconstructions - and that cuts off at 1850! The others end around 1970 or 1990, so none of them can be compared directly with current-day temperatures, though even at those not-so-recent dates they all match or exceed the earlier times (EIV excluded).

So you have to look at the overlap with the instrumental record for 1850 onwards to get an idea of how much the proxies under- or over-estimate warming. Looking at the EIV line at 1850, it's about 0.2C under the instrumental temperature at that time, so one could assume it might under-estimate temperatures by 0.2C. But you can see that even if you compensate for that assumed bias by adding 0.2C to the entire reconstruction, at no point does it come close to post-2000 temperatures.

Fig.2 shows proxy reconstructions for 20th century temperatures, which allows us more overlap with the instrumental record and thus a better idea of proxy bias, but if anything Fig.2 C/D shows the EIV proxies over-estimating temperatures, so that doesn't help your case.

In Fig 3 the calibration will have been to the entire instrumental record.

If that's true (it's unclear to me) - if the Fig.3 results have been re-calibrated to the instrumental record - then none of the proxy temperatures gets even slightly close to recent temperatures. I don't see how you feel a maximum 0.2C anomaly in 960 is remotely comparable to the 0.85+C anomaly shown for 2000. As Mann explicitly says, "Peak multidecadal warmth centered at A.D. 960 in this case corresponds approximately to 1980 levels".

the reconstructions since 1900 ARE NOT higher

Only because they don't even try to represent current-day temperatures.

I am observing the fact that the reconstructions themselves as the represent the warming since 1900 do NOT show unrivalled temperatures, but instead reflect a current warming that was matched by the reconstructions multiple times earlier. It is only when including the instrumental record that the comparison becomes anomalous.

So if I am to understand you correctly, your sole point is that the Northern Hemisphere proxy reconstructions by themselves do not show any higher temperatures than those during medieval times (because they cut off early and don't even try to include current temperatures). You don't consider the instrumental record to be pertinent to this point.

Is that it? Because if that really is the point you were trying to make, I'm left wondering why you bothered. It's abundantly clear that temperatures in the last couple of decades have shot well past those medieval levels, which is surely more relevant to today's discussions.

Comment Re:climate change deniers (you!) (Score 1) 375

All I see is you repeating what you said, over and over, waving away any the research that disagrees with you, and never citing any of your own - just more flat declarations that we're supposed to take on faith.

I understand what you're claiming quite well, but I disagree. I cited research that supports my opinion, whereas you dismiss it all as "a bunch of people with an agenda". How is this not pure denial?

Bangladesh is gaining sedimental land in some parts (which will take decades before it's useful farmland) - but it's still low-lying, and at the mercy of storm surges like this one. And that's still only one example. If you want to convince me that these analyses are flatly wrong, you'll have to do better than more unsourced declarations.

I said that it will do so independent of any policies we adopt.

I heard you the first time, and you still haven't provided any reason for me to believe you. Whereas adopting policies that restrict and phase out fossil fuels absolutely will greatly slow atmospheric CO2 level rises, since that is demonstrably the largest source.

the cost of dealing with climate change and the cost of avoiding it are about the same

That same report also says:
* that the costs are very likely to be greatly underestimated,
* that costs will scale up dramatically past 3-4 degrees of warming,
* that unmitigated warming adds numerous risks and uncertainties that could potentially add greatly to the bill,
* that there are numerous mitigation strategies with net-negative costs (i.e. they save more money than they cost),
* and that the financial costs do not take into account the significant human and social costs, which can also be reduced by mitigation.

Your clear example of cherry-picking the one quote you want to hear just highlights your own agenda.

the incorrect assumption that without government intervention, people won't switch to renewables

And how do you think people can switch to renewables when they have no choice about their electricity source? How do you propose to convince the fossil fuel companies to abandon their campaign of discrediting renewables at every point, to compete fairly in the market (they're currently given a free pass for offloading their external emissions costs, which costs us hundreds of billions annually), and to not make full use of their existing infrastructure, vast scale, and trillions in assets to do their utmost to block renewables from displacing them completely from the energy market?

Government intervention would not be required if the market were actually free, but it will never be free as long as carbon emitters don't have to pay for the costs of their emissions. Governments around the world have already intervened in numerous similar cases (sulfur emissions, ozone emissions) with highly successful results, yet some people remain utterly convinced that in this case any possible action is somehow doomed to failure.

Comment Re:climate change deniers (you!) (Score 1) 375

Rapid changes in global temperatures can absolutely cause mass extinctions.

Rising sea levels are "easy" to adapt to for us - but not cheap. We have a lot of valuable property on low-lying coastal areas, and billion-dollar floods from storm surges will only get more common, until we either build massive levees (where possible) or start relocating vast amounts of city infrastructure. Who gets stuck with that bill, the taxpayers? Owners of private homes who can no longer insure them? And that's assuming it doesn't turn out to be a lot worse than we expected.

Rising sea levels are not so easy to adapt to for the hundreds of millions in less-developed countries, where e.g. tens of millions of people depend on river delta farmland that will get flooded with salt water. (BTW, claiming there's no evidence of that is simple denial).

As for food production, the research shows both positives and negatives up until about 3K warming - and then highly likely to be negative after 3 degrees. It also shows that again, developing countries are least able to adapt and will experience more of the negatives (in part due to lower latitudes).

it is going to happen no matter what policies we adopt

Citation certainly needed for that. Sure we're stuck at 400ppm and probably higher, but we can still avoid far larger increases by phasing out fossil carbon as soon as practical. We're locked in to significant warming and we'll have to deal with that, but it will certainly get far worse (and far more expensive) if we stick our heads in the sand. The business-as-usual case is likely to see 3.7 to 4.5 degrees this century - much higher than the 2.0-2.5 we're hoping we can keep it to.

Comment Re:Queue the world ending in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... (Score 1) 375

Have you looked at the likely impacts with a mere 1K of warming? Because those are real problems and potentially very expensive - a long way from "meh", and particularly for the global poor who can least afford to adapt.

But there's absolutely no reason to assume the lowest outcome in that range - in fact, competent disaster planning would more likely work on the assumption of the worse case of 4.5K, even if we can hope for a lower result.

Nobody is claiming all the science is done and complete - the only thing that's completely "settled" is whether it's happening at all, though we've got a pretty good idea about how & why, and of the range of things that could happen. But if you think it should be better, then shouldn't you join the call for more focus and investment in climate research, rather than trying to undermine what's been done so far?

Comment Re:Hockey Stick is NOT the full story (Score 1) 375

Yeah I read what you said the first time. I'm curious why you feel you can interpret his data better than he can, since he clearly disagrees with you. Are you assuming that he is ignoring this bias himself, despite him describing it clearly in his graphs and his results? Did you factor in any of his mentioned caveats, such as the "divergence problem" of recently-declining tree-ring sensitivity (accounted for in Fig.2 B)?

Yes, I too looked at the data, and unless you're just slapping an arbitrarily-large boost onto the proxy data, I don't see anywhere that it supports your own conclusion. E.g. the CPS Land proxy slightly overestimates the instrumental record (in the period of overlap of Fig.3), and comes nowhere close to modern levels (even if you add on a generous 0.4C bias from Fig.2 B). Moberg 2005, Esper 2002, and Mann & Jones 2003 are similarly in the same ballpark as the instruments. The EIV proxies barely overlap the instrumental record at all, but you could perhaps assume about a 0.2C underestimation where they do (though this is not well supported by Fig.2 C/D) - and adding that back to the peaks of the proxy around 1000AD still falls short of current temperatures by over 0.6C. As Mann said, "The EIV reconstructions suggest that temperatures were relatively warm (comparable with the mean over the 1961–1990 reference period but below the levels of the past decade) from A.D. 1000 through the early 15th century". So which part of his data are you referring to?

It seems to me that you're taking an out-of-context quote about finding a bias, making an unsupported assumption as to how big that bias must be, then reinterpreting his conclusion to suit yourself (assuming that Mann has entirely ignored this bias himself), and directly contradicting his own findings.

Comment Re:Hockey Stick is NOT the full story (Score 1) 375

Higher resolution reconstructions by groups like Mann... show temperatures matching the current day within the last 2k years

Mann says otherwise, right in the first paragraph of the study you linked to (emphasis mine):

Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.

Comment Re:You do, obviously (Score 1) 367

You just said you don't trust the evil right-wing blogs.

It's got very little to do with blogs being evil or right-wing, and far more to do with spouting unsourced assertions. And yes, evil left-wing blogs do this too.

But when Bernie does it his numbers "have merit" and are "mostly true." When Trump does it he's "misleading" and "mostly false." Fuck you politifact.

The difference is that Sanders qualified his statements to refer to a more specific demographic:

"If you look at Latino kids between 17 and 20 who graduated high school, 36 percent of them are unemployed or underemployed. African-American kids are unemployed or underemployed to the tune of 51 percent."

(emphasis mine). Trump didn't; his claim was far more sweeping:

"If you look at what’s going on in this country, African-American youth is an example: 59 percent unemployment rate; 59 percent," Trump said.

Politifact asked both candidates to clarify; Sanders pointed them at research supporting his more-specific claim, while Trump did not respond. They speculate that Trump perhaps meant everyone who wasn't working, including students and others who weren't even looking for work, which is not the official definition of "unemployment rate". There's a reason the BLS lists Employed and Unemployed rates separately; they measure different things.

Surely you can see the difference between those two claims? Trump's broader claim, using the normally-accepted definition of "unemployment", does not come close to the current figures. Sanders' more-specific claim was supported by research. If Trump wants his assertions to be accepted, he either needs to be more specific, or to back them up with sources.

More importantly, Politifact a) examined the actual words said, with some context, b) provided sources for their figures, and c) fully explained their reasoning. That's all we can ask a fact-checking site to do, as it allows us to see why they made their judgement. You're free to assume a different interpretation of the words if you like, and also to link to other fact-checking sites that hopefully provide equally lucid reasoning. But claiming that "they said the same thing and Politifact supported one and not the other" is clearly not the case.

Also, I did not claim that the left doesn't tear down sources (they certainly do), I said "they rarely work this hard to tear down every reputable source". Perhaps we have different definitions of "reputable"? My idea of a reputable source is one that provides well-researched sources (peer-reviewed where possible) for their claims, and makes it clear when they are indulging in speculation. There are plenty of blogs on both sides that fail at this, but fact-checking sites generally try harder. I'm sure Breitbart comes out with well-researched pieces too, but there's a lot of articles full of unsourced assertions mixed in with them, which does not do their reputation much good. One can hope that their higher-quality points are picked up and repeated by more reputable sites, where they may get a broader audience.

My point was less about political mud-slinging, since that's a god-awful mess on both sides that I have little interest in (not being American), but more about the common theme of science denial that a fairly large proportion of conservatives seem fond of (in my country too). That this is being extended to fact-checking sites worries me, particularly the assumption that any fact-checking site would automatically be assumed by the right to be biased towards the left. Is objective truth really considered so hard to pin down, now? Are there no well-sourced fact-checking sites that the political right feels comfortable with?

Comment Re:You do, obviously (Score 1) 367

It's been asserted a million times. And I don't doubt one could find examples of fact-checking sites deliberately obscuring the truth - I certainly see it often enough on less-reputable blogs (the ones that rarely bother to cite sources).

But if you want to convince people that most fact-checking sites are just propaganda tools, you're going to have to show evidence of this. You know, like the fact-checking sites are supposed to. Telling people doesn't work, as you say, but showing them sometimes does.

It's interesting how it seems it's always the conservatives leading the charge against any source of objective truth - "scientists can't be trusted, peer review doesn't work, fact-checking sites are biased, the truth is what I say it is and you'd think the same if you just googled the blogs yourself". While the far left spouts their own brand of bullshit, they rarely work this hard to tear down every reputable source that disagrees. Why is that?

Comment Re:You do, obviously (Score 1) 367

they're really just propaganda and get cited as if they're authority

And here we have another claim that doesn't cite any sources (and no, Politifact doesn't say that).

If you have specific issues, cite specific examples. If you think that a fact-checking site is wrong about the literal facts, then cite a reputable source that disproves that. If you think that a fact-checking site is misinterpreting an issue, then cite sources that you think don't, preferably ones at least as reputable. Then people can decide for themselves.

That your unsourced assertion got marked as Insightful is exactly why we need fact-checking sites in the first place, or we'll all get buried in the bullshit.

Comment Re:"""Fact check""" (Score 2) 367

Thank you for linking to an authoritative source. That's exactly the sort of information that's needed - and it does not contradict Snope's account at all. I agree it says she made an investigation; I do not agree that it says she thinks the victim is a crazy liar:

"I have made an investigation of the facts and circumstances in this case, and and verily believe that a psychiatric examination of the defendant, , is necessary and vital in this case.

It says quite literally (not "almost") that she believes an examination is necessary, and nothing about what she personally thinks of the victim. However, I do agree her words are clearly intended to cast doubt on the victim's mental state, in the mind of the jury. I would describe that as an obvious and expected action from a defence lawyer in a case like that. I disagree that this implies any moral deficiency on the part of that lawyer; if she does not perform her job to her ability, it merely opens avenues for appeal.

The facts are what she actually said. The rest is your interpretation, or mine. She clearly did not tell the jury that the defendant "made up the rape story", so Snopes is right to call that one out. But I will agree with you that the implied accusation she made is indeed very similar to Trump's frequent implications; the primary difference being it was her job to imply that, in a case she clearly did not want.

Don't claim to "check facts" when you are in fact putting forth a position.

Are you not doing exactly that?

Slashdot Top Deals

"If there isn't a population problem, why is the government putting cancer in the cigarettes?" -- the elder Steptoe, c. 1970