Weather Channel To Breitbart: Stop Citing Us To Spread Climate Skepticism (weather.com) 588
Breitbart.com published an article last week that erroneously claims global warming is coming to an end, claiming "global land temperatures have plummeted by 1 degree Celsius since the middle of the year -- the biggest and steepest fall on record." The Weather Channel finds this report especially upsetting as it's not only inaccurate but it features a video from weather.com at the top of the article. The Weather Channel reports: Breitbart had the legal right to use this clip as part of a content-sharing agreement with another company, but there should be no assumption that The Weather Company endorses the article associated with it. The Breitbart article -- a prime example of cherry picking, or pulling a single item out of context to build a misleading case -- includes this statement: "The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare." In fact, thousands of researchers and scientific societies are in agreement that greenhouse gases produced by human activity are warming the planet's climate and will keep doing so. Along with its presence on the high-profile Breitbart site, the article drew even more attention after a link to it was retweeted by the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. The Breitbart article heavily references a piece that first appeared on U.K. Daily Mail's site. The Weather Channel went on to refute the Breitbart article's hypothesis: This number comes from one satellite-based estimate of temperatures above land areas in the lower atmosphere. Data from the other two groups that regularly publish satellite-based temperature estimates show smaller drops, more typical of the decline one would expect after a strong El Nino event. Temperatures over land give an incomplete picture of global-scale temperature. Most of the planet -- about 70 percent -- is covered by water, and the land surface warms and cools more quickly than the ocean. Land-plus-ocean data from the other two satellite groups, released after the Breitbart article, show that Earth's lower atmosphere actually set a record high in November 2016.
You know what? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's getting close to the point that the schadenfreude of seeing morons get their due makes up for the fact that we all will be screwed.
So by all means lets call climate change a hoax. When the inevitable calamities fall, I suspect the deplorables and Breitbart readers will be disproportionately affected and not only will I not shed a tear but I will kick dirt in their faces.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"An eye for an eye" will blind the whole world.
Re:You know what? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a dumb comment. The AC is not threatening to physically harm anyone in any way, or proposing any kind of punishment for climate deniers to be performed by humans. He's only saying that he'll be happy to see them "hoist by their own petard". There's nothing wrong with feeling satisfaction after watching someone suffer due to their own stupidity and bad decisions, especially when their actions are in fact harmful to the rest of society.
Honestly, at this point, there's nothing we can do to stop massive climate change because of the deplorables and their mouthpieces like Breitbart. We're not going to change their minds; people like this fundamentally do not believe in science. So the next best thing is to just wait for the apocalypse to happen, and then take satisfaction in watching these morons suffer due to it.
Re: You know what? (Score:2, Funny)
But wait, if this is true, surely I would have heard about it on legacy mainstream media. They don't support corrupt agendas... only breitbart and those other alternative media outlets are the ones that can't be trusted. That's what my news feed says anyway.
https://youtub
Re: You know what? (Score:2, Interesting)
There is enough evidence, now, to show that global warming is most likely not a real threat.
Physicists in Los Alamos hammered out the basics of global warming during the Manhattan Project (as well as plans for future large-scale geoengineering). In the late 80's, NATO held a summit where further plans and details (re: offsetting global warming) were discussed . So, if we've been witnessing a drop in observed temperatures, perhaps TPTB are actually doing something about it. Either way, use that goddamn excuse for a brain and don't be so fucking gullible.
Winter is Coming (Score:4, Informative)
So, if we've been witnessing a drop in observed temperatures, perhaps TPTB are actually doing something about it.
The quote was that we have been observing a global drop in land temperatures since the middle of the year. There is far more land in the northern hemisphere than the southern which means seasonal effects will not balance out. So rather than evidence of geoengineering I'd just take this as a sign that winter is coming.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you know that FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt? Do you understand that "global warming is most likely not a real threat" is the opposite of spreading fear?
I didn't think so. You didn't think either.
Re: (Score:3)
We knew this going in (Score:4, Interesting)
It's getting close to the point that the schadenfreude of seeing morons get their due makes up for the fact that we all will be screwed.
So by all means lets call climate change a hoax. When the inevitable calamities fall, I suspect the deplorables and Breitbart readers will be disproportionately affected and not only will I not shed a tear but I will kick dirt in their faces.
Ok, so which is more important: everyone in the country slipping into poverty [cbsnews.com] and terrorist attacks from immigrants [cnn.com] next year, or...
Global warming, only [our] part of which can fixed by us, is driven by political corruption, and won't affect us for a couple of decades?
Of these issues, political corruption is the biggest impediment to rational climate change action. Getting rid of that has to come first, and only then can we expect to make progress on the other issues.
Do you think anything would get done under a Clinton administration [huffingtonpost.com]?
We knew Trump had shortcomings, and still elected him - warts and all. We did it because he promised to fix certain issues that we felt were more important in the near term. Global warming will kill us, but, mass poverty will kill us sooner.
I'm completely happy taking steps to curb global warming, but a) I want to be safe doing it, and b) I want to eat first.
Get some perspective. Not everything Trump is going to do will be bad, and you always have 2024 to look forward to.
Re:We knew this going in (Score:5, Insightful)
So... you are completely happy with Trump's choices for his cabinet and advisors? No possible corruption there? Isn't giving people who are unqualified positions of power the textbook definition of corruption?
Trump took a call based on lobbying work done by Dole on behalf of Taiwan, no corruption there? Imagine Hilary taking the same call?
How can you be so attuned to political corruption if Hillary's name is attached to it, but blind to Trump's?
And do you truly believe billionaires would reform the tax code so that poor people are lifted out of poverty? Not just regular filthy rich people but Goldman Sachs alums? Seriously, are you crazy?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't giving people who are unqualified positions of power the textbook definition of corruption?
Uh, no? Giving people positions of power in exchange for favours, or due to pre-existing relationships (e.g. nepotism) are textbook definitions of corruption. Their qualification or lack their of is irrelevant to whether the appointment is corrupt or not.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:We knew this going in (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but Trump does that as well. He gives jobs to friends, people who helped him out and the owner of his favourite media organization. [boingboing.net]
The guy is incredibly corrupt. His only criteria for assigning jobs seems to be who as bought their way in with favours.
Re: (Score:3)
I beg to differ on Taiwan. My own belief is that Trump simply stepped in a pile of shit without malice of forethought or any forethought at all. When the shit hit the fan, his people realized he looked like a bull in a China shop (I should be shot for that reference). His people rummaged about, finally pulling out the Dole connection to make it look like he intentionally went to find the pile, walked up to it, and purposely stepped in it.
I don't believe his campaign intentionally did anything except as a sh
Re: (Score:3)
My own belief is that Trump simply stepped in a pile of shit without malice of forethought or any forethought at all.
The phrase is actually "malice aforethought".
Re: (Score:3)
Some of the GOP’s most ardent Taiwan proponents are playing active roles in Trump’s transition team.......Several leading members of Trump’s transition team are considered hawkish on China and friendly toward Taiwan, including incoming chief of staff Reince Priebus.
It was planned weeks ahead by staffers and Taiwan specialists on both sides, according to people familiar with the plans.
At the Republican National Convention in July, Trump’s allies inserted a little-noticed phrase into the party’s platform reaffirming support for six key assurances to Taiwan
Trump did the right thing. China should not be allowed to conquer Taiwan. Why would you think allowing that's a good idea?
Re:We knew this going in (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary lost. Get over it.
Yes, she did. And that means she is irrelevant now. As far as politics are concerned, she's in a rocking chair with a glass of lemonade. And now it's up to you to get over that.
Trump, on the other hand, is fair game for the next four years. Bringing up Hillary in an argument regarding him is just pathetic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except, Hillary wasn't the only other alternative. Lots of other people were running, who were not corrupt and believed in climate change. And, don't tell me they weren't an alternative because your 1 vote for them wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election. That is the case no matter who you voted for. Picking one of the alternatives and saying he's better than that is not a legitimate argument for him being the best one.
Re: (Score:3)
You are correct. Some of us voted for Sanders in the Primary. We were told on facebook we weren't needed in November.
The DNC wanted their queen and they got it.
Re:We knew this going in (Score:5, Insightful)
He campaigned against Wall Street bankers running things and then nominates a Wall Street banker to run things. How's that swamp draining going?
Re:We knew this going in (Score:5, Informative)
Jeff Sessions (the attorney general nominee) is a career political hack. Even Republicans refused to confirm him to the federal bench. I'm confused, is Trump draining or trying to fill up the swamp?
Re: (Score:2)
He's draining the swamp out into the government buildings.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
china is an ascendant power.
they have the worlds largest economy.
they have the worlds fastest growing economy, growing at 8% GDP year after year for the past 14 years or so, including during the global recession.
they even surpassed the US in Purchasing Power Parity , giving rise to a new ascendant middle class in their country.
many European nations had already done so, having more social programs that support people and so stretch their money further.
But the fact china, seen still as a 3rd world hell hole
Re:We knew this going in (Score:4, Funny)
I heard he was considering El Chapo for heading the DEA.
Re:We knew this going in (Score:5, Insightful)
Global warming will kill us, but, mass poverty will kill us sooner.
A) No, poverty won't kill us. Income inequity and the gutting of health, education and social services will kill some people—far too many, to be sure— but mostly it will reduce the quality of life for a generation or so. Undesirable? Yes. Deadly? Not for most people.
B) The reason for climate action today is not because it's going to affect us today. It's because every day of delay compounds the problem. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're the type of person who changes their oil regularly and sticks to the vehicle maintenance schedule, because ignoring things until they become critical is costly and stupid....
C) If I have to carry B)'s analogy any further, there's really no point in even responding.
Not everyone assumes Trump is unalloyed evil. But Breitbart, on the other hand, is deliberately indulging in the kind of corrupt, amoral behaviour you claim that Donald Trump needs to deal with as his first priority.
[editor's note: Here is where the poster loses his shit at the willful blindness of this defender of the indefensible.]
In layman's terms, they fucking lie and lie and lie about climate change, and you can't get that through your fucking head. Instead, you defend the very fucking liars you claim are ruining this globe by pooh-poohing the fact that they fucking lied and claiming that the thing they fucking lied about isn't that big a deal.
Here's the problem with that situation: If you're so fed up with political corruption, why the fuck are you defending the very people who are perpetuating the problem? And don't give me any 'but Hillary' shit. I don't give a flying fuck about Hillary. I don't care if she's the devil. I am specifically concerned that you, sir, are defending liars in your paean to the need to end a culture of corruption. Because I don't fucking get it.
Re:I do not! (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservatives used to make serious arguments, sometimes reasonable, sometimes specious. Not anymore. What the fuck happened? Decades of right-wing radio and Fox News? Trump's magical promises to make literally everything better without ever explaining how? An addiction to #pizzagate-style conspiracy-mongering? Come on.
Re:I do not! (Score:5, Insightful)
And here again we see the goddamn problem. You're presented with a fair argument, outlined in easy-to-reply-to numbers, and your only response is "bu-bu-but Hillary lol."
That's a human thing, not a conservative thing. Ask almost anybody about the horrible thing that $PERSON_THEY_SUPPORT did, and the answer is almost ALWAYS going to be, "but $OTHER_GUY did the same thing!" Ask them about something they personally did, and they'll complain about something you did. It comes down to education (or lack thereof) and emotion--most people cannot think critically anymore, have no desire to do so, and allow their emotions to rule their arguments.
Conservatives used to make serious arguments, sometimes reasonable, sometimes specious. Not anymore. What the fuck happened?
Again, same problem on both sides. The arguments on the conservative side are largely devolving into conspiracy theories, while the arguments on the liberal side these days largely consist of repeating the words "you racist, misogynist, fuck!" over and over.
I'm not being entirely fair--there are quite a few people on both sides that still make really good arguments. But their numbers are relatively small, and their signal is being lost in the sea of noise. The conservative thinkers appear to be letting this go because their side is (currently) "winning." The liberal thinkers appear to be letting this go because if they open their mouths, they'll be ripped apart by the shrieking hordes of SJWs.
Re:I do not! (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess what though... change is inevitable.. all things change both physical and societal. Entropy always increases, and entropy is change.
Re:I do not! (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the problem with that situation: If you're so fed up with political corruption, why the fuck are you defending the very people who are perpetuating the problem?
I do not defend or support Hillary Clinton in any way!
I really don't get it, to be honest. Your parent is right - Trump is EXACTLY the kind of person you claim he's supposed to deal with. Let me help you understand; we're going to 'trumpify' Hillary Clinton. She:
* puts NYT's head reporter on her cabinet team because he relentlessly supported her throughtout her campaign (which they didn't really btw, they had plenty of critical articles, and when they did it was largely based on facts and policy details, not publishing blatant lies)
* puts a guy convicted of selling state secrets to a hooker in a national security position
* built a luxury estate and then refused to pay the people who built it
* is completely dependent on Russian banks to not revoke her credit, actively serves them, and caves in on policy decisions to wealthy people
* refuses to release any tax returns or details on her finances
Honestly, I'm just getting started. Can you seriously compare Trump and Clinton, and then tell me that he's the model who's going to clear corruption? I'd argue he's faaaaar more corrupt than she is, because unlike her, he is completely dependent on the establishment for power - the instant he crosses the line, they can simply impeach him and replace him with Pence. And if Pence isn't the image of an establishment Republican, I think you're not really anti-establishment, but anti-democrat. Which makes you partisian, and that isn't really a necessarily a bad thing (even though I disagree with that philosophy), but don't even pretend that you want an outsider if that's the case.
And seriously, the whole Hillary thing has got to go. She's gone, you need to get over it, and deal with our current presidential canidate, the one with with blantant ties to the mafia [politifact.com]. Do you honestly expect a man dependent on Putin, the mafia, and the existing establishment, to prevent any new form of corruption, let alone actually clear the existing situation out?
The one shining light in all this hell is Mrs. Ivanka, who actually seems to be pretty resonable and agrees with climate change, but we'll see how long that lasts.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that you think Clinton is corrupt. What makes you think that?
Re:We knew this going in (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to understand why you think Trump will do anything about climate change.
During the campaign, he said that climate change was a hoax, perpetrated by the Chinese, to make American industry less competitive.
He has appointed a climate-change denialist to oversee the power-transition at the EPA.
Recently he has allowed that there may be some connection between climate change and CO2 emissions, and he has met with Al Gore. Encouraging, but weigh that against the above, and his mercurial tendencies when it comes to policy positions.
Re:We knew this going in (Score:5, Insightful)
Luckily the scientists have the drop on you and have been working for decades to answer those questions. Their answers exist, and are available to everyone and anyone wishing to read them, but you are having too much fun pretending to want to care to read them.
Re:We knew this going in (Score:5, Insightful)
Of these issues, political corruption is the biggest impediment to rational climate change action. Getting rid of that has to come first, and only then can we expect to make progress on the other issues.
Ah yes, getting rid of political corruption. Draining the swamp. I'm glad to see Trump is making great strides there, appointing Goldman Sachs alum left and right.
Re: (Score:3)
We knew Trump had shortcomings, and still elected him - warts and all. We did it because he promised to fix certain issues that we felt were more important in the near term.
The perspective that I have is that anyone who believes anything Trump promises has totally lost touch with anything resembling reality. The man burns everyone who trusts him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The slick salesguy promised? Were the operators standing by? Do you get a free set of steak knives with your order?
You thought there wasn't enough of it or something and voted for obvious scum?
I think compulsory voting would make room for a third party and avoid such obvious mistakes in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm completely happy taking steps to curb global warming, but a) I want to be safe doing it,
Safety is an illusion.
and b) I want to eat first.
If you want to continue to eat, you're going to do something about it.
Get some perspective. Not everything Trump is going to do will be bad,
Literally the only good thing I think might happen is that he might can the TPP. But I'm not even sure that's going to happen. He's hiring the people from the bottom of the swamp so fast that I can believe he will backpedal on literally anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Global warming is not so much driven by corruption, as we're prevented from acting by those who've drunk the "hoax" Kool-Aid. Republican politicians, many of whom admitted privately that they understand the problem, are beholden to their voters. That is the biggest impediment to the Republican Party, and thus the rest of us. But "our part" got fixed under the last administration. If Trump simply does nothing, we'll at least meet the Kyoto goals.
You have a very short-sighted, not to mention selfish, view of
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, US citizens, for the gift.
Is this anti-Christian or anti-American? Hard to tell with fake comments.
Re: (Score:2)
Make that anti-US, fucker. The Americas neither begin, nor end with your swamp.
Tough crowd tonight.
Once truth gasps its last breath... (Score:5, Insightful)
then our democracy truly is dead. We aren't there yet. I still have hope, but any government that relies on propaganda to gain and hold power is the opposite of a democracy, and that is the road we are traveling toward.
There are no excuses. Neither candidate or party was that impressive, but one was and clearly is so much worse. No elected representative should ever excuse a single blatant lie just to keep their political capital, let alone the nonsense that is beginning now. We are living in a time when post truth is the word of the year, and not without reason.
Demand honesty from our politicians. Demand it from our news sources and anything that presents itself as legitimate news. If we have any hope of building a more perfect union, then we have to move past and ever be on guard for lies and deception, and never make excuses for them. We may never get a 100% honest candidate. Sadly I don't think one would make it in politics, but we can at least value that highly and penalize those severely who really do continually violate the public trust.
Re:Once truth gasps its last breath... (Score:5, Interesting)
then our democracy truly is dead. We aren't there yet. I still have hope, but any government that relies on propaganda to gain and hold power is the opposite of a democracy, and that is the road we are traveling toward.
"Traveling toward"? Really? Take a look in the rear view mirror, buddy, that fork in the road is WAY back behind you. You've been on the road for a LONG time!
How do you demand honesty (Score:2)
Re:How do you demand honesty (Score:4, Insightful)
if you're not able to tell the difference? Sure, maybe 20 million could and didn't care. But I'd say there's at least 40 million who couldn't...
It's more or less the same thing as anything else computer related. Assume anything you read is a lie until proven otherwise. Check the pedigree of any web site you visit. Is the name really spelled correctly? Are you connecting via https as expected? Do not automatically assume just because it is on or linked from some site you visit that it is correct. Check the little i on your address bar to see what the web site is, look for misspellings, etc.
If you think a story is from a popular web site, but can't tell for sure, then you can always clear your cache and then reload your browser and go directly to the correct site. (Personally, I'd recommend not starting your news search at Facebook and all the rest, but that is another matter.)
Also, if you haven't already point your router to some legit DNS servers. Do not assume your ISP is providing your valid results. I personally use opendns servers, with google's as backup. It is debatable if I should leave google as the fallback, though it should I think only hit them if opendns fails to respond.
In fact, a DNS server that does some basic filtering is the first line of defense against a lot of crap, though I doubt it would help much here. Still, it is something. Adding ublock probably doesn't hurt either. A compromised system is liable to show anything fake as real. I suppose you could also make it a point to say reimage with an updated linux distro and keep it updated at least once a year, and of course occasionally change passwords of personal systems. Yearly wouldn't hurt, though i'm doubting much is really compromised that way.
Beyond all that, people need to double check any suspect or suspicious results. Google will generally tell you pretty quickly if it is a scam. Search for the topic plus scam or fake as a keyword and 24 hours or something like that. Of course you also have to be wary about fake sites saying real news is a scam, so always check the sources. One thing to be especially wary of is well established narratives. A lie is easier to believe if you can link it to a pattern of other similar things, but in today's world it is possible that pattern was made up of a string of false stories, with one lie building on the previous. Oddly enough wikipedia usually seems to be relatively neutral, eventually, though you may see wild edits on some things before an article is locked down. Check the revision history. If the article suddenly changed tone, well I think you can look at the author's other edits.
Look for the reason behind the likely lies. Sometimes it is not entirely obvious. There was probably enough fake news generated this election to shift the election for no other reason that to harvest the click money. Of course much of it had darker reasons, and some of it was brought attention to for darker purposes. As you might have read in a story like Naruto, Learn to look underneath the underneath. If you see a story that politician x is responsible for running a child slaver ring, well, unless you see it on a legit site complete with the police in pursuit, then suspect it is bs. Also, think things through. Is politician X stupid? Is he or she basically competent and intelligent? If so, why exactly would they be doing something so guaranteed to destroy their whole career? Occasionally Anthony Weiner's do happen, but it is certainly the kind of thing you want to double check.
Look for evidence of editing. Is a clip suspiciously short? Can you find the full length version? Was their context missing? Does the source have a reputation for editing things deceptively? Is the source credible at all? What other kinds of stories has the source been responsible in the past? It sholdn't be hard to check.
Actually even if you can't find a way to disprove a current story right away, you can often find reason to doubt
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't care that lies were told because they decided that their top priority was to get their guy elected, higher priority than doing what's right for their fellow citizens or the country. This is the worst aspect of politics, which already has so many negatives. The partisans pick sides and defend them no matter what, no matter how wrong they are, no matter how much it hurts, they assume that the only thing that matters is winning. It's like when the US made allies with some of the most brutal dict
Re:How do you demand honesty (Score:5, Interesting)
they assume that the only thing that matters is winning
This is, unfortunately, an inherent trait in humans.
There was, many years ago, a "competition" in Scientific American to win up to $1M
The rules were:
1. Random draw from all the entries received
2. You could enter as many times as you liked - to make this easier you could write multiple entries on a single postcard. (write the number of entries you wanted to submit on your postcard)
3. Final prize was $1M divided by the total number of entries.
It was estimated that there was in the order of 10K readers of the column. (Actually I think it was less than this but I can't be bothered to try and track down the columns again now) There had also been a detailed discussion of the prisoners dilemma and other related problems in the previous weeks.
It's immediately obvious that to win $1M you need to be the only entrant and send in a postcard with a single entry on it.
If every subscriber sent in a single postcard with a single entry on it then someone would win of the order of $100.
But some people sent in huge numbers - the postcard filled with '9's. Others went one better and put a 9 and then filled the postcard with '!'s (factorial). Others went even further.
IIRC the author (Douglas Hofstadter) wasn't actually able to determine who the winner was. He lacked the ability to randomly select from the total number of entries. He couldn't even tell which of the numbers was actually the largest.
However, whoever won, the number of entries was so large that the prize was zero for all intents and purposes.
Some people got it - some wrote in to say that they hadn't submitted an entry because they had metaphorically "tossed a coin" and lost and so allowed someone else to win a bigger prize. But so many people were more interested in winning nothing than someone winning something.
Re: (Score:2)
Demand it from our news sources and anything that presents itself as legitimate news. I
Put in a bit of work - make a list of companies who advertise on (for example) Breitbart, then divide that list into companies whose products you buy (or might buy), and those whose products don't interest you.
Write a letter (a letter, not an email, not a phone call) to the PR departments of those in the first category, and tell them that you will not buy their products while they advertise on Breitbart, and their compe
Re: Once truth gasps its last breath... (Score:5, Funny)
Amen to that. If these so-called "meteorologists" and "climatologists" truly valued free speech, they would keep their precious "data" and "facts" and expert "opinions" to themselves and quit voicing their opinion every time a (fake) news outlet publishes deliberately misrepresents these experts' facts for political reasons and then cites them to make it sound legit.
After all, climate change is nothing more than a scientific *theory*, like evolution, quantum mechanics, gravity, and magnetism. Provide as large a mountain of evidence as you want--it will never be proof and it will never give you the right to speak your mind in cases where your mind disagrees with the inhabitants of the swamp that is currently overtaking Washington DC.
Re: (Score:3)
It is a democracy - a representative democracy. It's not particularly well functioning, but it's a democracy.
It's gonna be fun (Score:2)
Re:It's gonna be fun (Score:4, Funny)
People want Brawndo!
People want to read their news on Facebook as long as reading that dull news tells us what to think.
News shouldn't take too long to read (maybe 10 seconds or so) because I need to get my latte at Starbucks and when I'm waiting in line, my attention span is short. ...." and have some ditz with big boobs or a deck of credit cards fanned out.
It must have a headline starting with "your jaw will drop
Walter Cronkite would have wanted it that way.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll still be able to get a latte at Starbucks?
Stop calling it "skepticism". (Score:5, Insightful)
Skepticism is doubt.
Unqualified disbelief is just another kind of orthodoxy.
Re: Stop calling it "skepticism". (Score:5, Informative)
Saying that is so doesn't make it so. There's overwhelming empirical evidence that the Earth has been warming since middle of the twentieth century, particularly from around 1970 onward. This is shown both in the surface instrumental record and in the satellite record.
Re: Stop calling it "skepticism". (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference is my belief is falsifiable. So in that respect I think you're belief system resembles faith more than than mine.
Re: Stop calling it "skepticism". (Score:5, Informative)
They refuse to release un-'adjusted' data sets, even going so far as to attempt to use copyright claims on publicly-funded research
Knock yourself out [noaa.gov]. However unadjusted data is pretty useless for drawing conclusions from.
Re: Stop calling it "skepticism". (Score:5, Informative)
You can lead an ass to knowledge but you cannot make him learn.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. And no attribution required. It's public domain :-)
Re: Stop calling it "skepticism". (Score:4, Informative)
This unmitigated drivel is modded 'Insighful'? The evidence is stacked to the rafters, and available to anyone who cares to look. China is working hard to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels.
It's getting warmer, and we caused it. You think it's a scam? Come up with some evidence, instead of frothing at the mouth.
Re: Stop calling it "skepticism". (Score:4, Insightful)
You're like the kid with his fingers in his ears going "lalalalalalalala I can't hear you". Just because it's news you don't want to hear doesn't mean it's not true.
Thousands of studies done by different, independent parties all agree Earth's climate is warming up rapidly due to human action. How much more extraordinary do you need the evidence to be?
mod parent down (Score:3)
Parent post is not insightful, apart perhaps from offering insight into the mind of someone deeply confused.
He has confused (intentionally?) and conflated a whole bunch of different things from "alarmists" which presumably is almost exclusively related to the popular media and scientists which are the people he accuses of not releasing data. He then goes on to use economic predictions to dismiss the underlying science. That's not insight, that's desperately confused reasoning.
And finally, of course the en
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Stop calling it "skepticism". (Score:4, Informative)
again you post completely wrong information.
They refuse to release un-'adjusted' data sets, even going so far as to attempt to use copyright claims on publicly-funded research
Wrong.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data... [noaa.gov]
https://www.newscientist.com/a... [newscientist.com]
http://berkeleyearth.org/data/ [berkeleyearth.org]
Also, BS on the copyright claim.
They will not release the actual programs, algorithms, and data used in their computer models,
Wrong.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data... [noaa.gov]
which still are unable to both track past climate changes while modeling the future global temperature rise rates claimed.
Wrong.
http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
https://www.wunderground.com/c... [wunderground.com]
Models which most accurately track past changes do not show the predicted increases,
Wrong.
See above.
while models that show predicted increases in global temperature averages do not track against past climate records.
Wrong.
see above.
In order to assume this is reason enough to greatly disrupt the US national economy (guaranteed other nations like China, Russia, and India will not harm *their* economies b/c of CAGW alarmism) requires a 'leap of faith' equal to that of a religion.
That is a completely BS talking point.
No one is harming anyone's economy as a result of fighting this.
The idea that this somehow requires harming your economy is complete BS.
China and India are already more committed to it than the US is, and have, relatively, done more. And China's economy is both the largest in the world, and fastest growing, growing at a whopping 8% GDP every year for the past decade and a half, including during the global recession (ie, they weren't even hit by the recession), and while they are enacting more and more environmental regulations to do their part.
And in the US the "Green Energy Revolution" has created thousands of jobs and economic opportunity.
But that's what happens when a new industry grows; the naysayers (like you) who said it would be different this time, that it would harm people, were idiots.
It requires faith without any more proof than Christians have to believe in the God of Abraham. The way that CAGW alarmists have been acting has not been that different from the Westboro Baptist Church nutters.
This only shows that you are ignorant about both groups of people.
They try to shout-down and silence opposing voices, substituting outrage, anger, and argument/appeal from/to authority for reason and logic.
No, that's what you're doing.
Even their precious IPCC/Dr. Roy Cook "97% scientific consensus" is bullshit. The "97%" includes scientists who think humans have *some* effect on climate, which humorously includes many on the "Denier(TM)"-side.
Not sure what your point is here.
Best I can tell is that you're disproving your own point and not even realizing it.
This is essentially what you just did:
-You said gravity wasn't real
-You threw an apple in the air
-It hit you on the head.
-You then said "See? Gravity is BS."
Hell, *I* believe humans have *some* effect, I've simply seen no evidence that justifies massive immediate changes
Well, the willfully ignorant typically remain that way until forced into action.
Especially when they are as determined to ignore reality as you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Stop calling it "skepticism". (Score:5, Informative)
I don't want to give my real name for reasons that would be obvious, but I am Stephen Hawking and I just gave it to your mom in the butt.
Re: Stop calling it "skepticism". (Score:4, Funny)
I envision the headlines:
"Stephen Hawking working on brown holes"
Re: Stop calling it "skepticism". (Score:4, Interesting)
My favorite part of this is that this numbskull thinks there's a climate scientist who makes six figures.
Re: (Score:3)
My favorite part of this is that this numbskull thinks there's a climate scientist who makes six figures.
It's like a riddle, and the answer is:
The AC climate researcher is working for the Koch brothers.
Re: (Score:2)
grab him by the kotch!
Re: Stop calling it "skepticism". (Score:5, Informative)
I do not refer to the IPCC assessment reports. I pulled raw data into mysql and did it myself.
Same as Richard Muller did at the behest of the Koch Brothers (though mine was less sophisticated).
We all get the same result.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What exactly are you arguing against?
The fact that CO2 absorbs IR, or the fact that human beings increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? If it's neither (which it should be since both are easily provable), then it follows logically that human beings are increasing the earths temperature. Seriously this is grade 4 stuff.
Re: Stop calling it "skepticism". (Score:4, Interesting)
The history of greenhouse effect theory is interesting and well worth reading up on. It was first raised as a possibility in the 1890s, but rejected quickly based on two erroneous beliefs: (1) that the oceans would rapidly absorb any increase in atmospheric CO2 and (2) that the absorption spectra of water vapor and CO2 mostly overlapped. Together these implied that CO2 could not increase in the atmosphere, and even if it did it could not capture any heat that water vapor wouldn't have anyway.
There are a lot of twists and turns in the story, which Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] does a pretty good job of summarizing. I highly recommend reading that article.
Re: (Score:3)
I have no problem with my belief system, which is evidence-based and falsifiable. I do have to live with people who are intellectual sheep but who've been deluded into believing they're free-thinkers.
Re: (Score:2)
???
I think you meant to spew at someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
"Qualification" means conditions you set on the belief, without which you are willing to withdraw your belief.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not silencing any skeptics. I'm stripping credulous people of the conceit that they're skeptics.
Oh were have the hackers gone.. (Score:2)
Obvious solution, is to play climate science videos when the http referer matches breitbart... Of course such a thing should only kick in after the first 100 views...
Cherry picking data, you say? (Score:3, Insightful)
My, cherry picking data to support a pre-existing conclusion? Where did anyone get that idea? Oh, right the mainstream media uses this tactic all the time.
If we were only as skeptic and hostile towards the MSM as we were towards alternative media and citizen journalists. The MSM is frightened as it has never been frightened before. People are reading the news without their hostile filter and it's a scary new world out there. What's the point of being a journalist if you can't bias reality in the guise of "providing context"? They went to J-school to change the world, not to be some kind of impartial fact recorder, like a baseball umpire calling balls and strikes.
-- Dave Rubin
Re:Cherry picking data, you say? (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering that they don't teach journalism anymore? They only teach political propaganda and how to write in order to sway your point of view while ignoring objectivity. In the last decade, some of the most egregious offenders of "journalism" have been those with actual degrees like Ezra Klien and Sam Biddle.
Assholes like you who'd rather use the media as propaganda mouth pieces in order to sway people into the "right kind of view" or "right kind of thinking" are the reason why Trump won. Learn from it, or you can learn the real hard way when it all burns down around you. People will only put up with propaganda for so long before they grab the torches and pitchforks. For example, ask Germany and the rape-and-murder of a teenage girl. Many people knew the media was lying over the migrant crimes, it only took someone with a high profile and a family member being slaughtered before everyone started coming out against the system in play.
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't have said it better, my friend. Every asshole in the world thinks they can report a news story. Most of them are wrong.
And the stunned cunt you're replying to isn't even aware that the problem with mainstream news media is that reporters aren't allowed to do their job. Risk-averse lawyers and bean counters decide what stories will be covered, and their drivers are profit from high ratings and fear of getting hit with a lawsuit by a somebody with deep pockets and a hatred of having their evil e
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I like how this is just now a problem (Score:4, Informative)
When neoconservatives spread outright fabrications and lies about obamacare, nobody took the time to correct them.
You mean like it would be astronomically expensive? That rates would go up, that you'd never keep your doctor? That health plans would disappear? That yes Virginia, death panels really do exist? Oh...those lies. That turned out to be facts, but the media wouldn't report on them.
Re: (Score:2)
... death panels ...
Wow there really is no conspiracy so nutso you won't fall for it. Also, jet fuel can't melt steel beams, but the power sources used by the Lizard-men can.
Can you provide me a link now which is utterly unrelated to the pint you're trying to prove? Pretty please?
Re: (Score:2)
The reasons I read /. for sure are changing (Score:5, Insightful)
Years ago, I came here for insightful and informative exchange of arguments on a topic.Not that long ago, it was for witty and cynical but still topic commentary.
Today, all I come for is to watch the entertaining, ballistic mud slinging of Trump supporters and opponents. Independent of topic. But climate change themes sure add another layer of vitriol to it.
In movie terms, I came for the documentaries, stayed for the mocumentaries and now I'm here for the Michael Bay popcorn flick. I used to care about the story, but today, all I watch are the explosions, whether there is a script anymore or not isn't important, I'm just here to watch the pretty pictures and don't give a shit about the content anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Years ago, I came here for insightful and informative exchange of arguments on a topic.Not that long ago, it was for witty and cynical but still topic commentary.
I can't remember ever seeing the amount of politiking that has been happening on /. lately, perhaps this is some new phase. Slashdot was discussing climate change long before Al Gore came onto the scene because it was science. There is only so much you can read before you say you accept that something is happening beyond the immediacy of your own senses.
I think because the coal and oil industry have so much resources they can buy or make any study they want, it confuses those in denial about the science in
The Alt+Right is stronger than the Back button (Score:5, Funny)
You underestimate the power of the Alt+Right. It can undo presses of the Back button in your web browser. If you end up on a Dimbart article, and you click the Back button to escape what you see as reactionary bullcrap, pressing Alt+Right will bring it right back.
#1TermDonald (Score:2)
Though you appear to decry use of derogatory nicknames, it is among the rhetorical tactics of the apparent President-elect.* During his campaign, he used such a nickname for each of his opponents: Low-Energy Jeb, Little Marco, 1 for 38 Kasich, Lyin' Ted (which some of his supporters attempted to reclaim as Lion Ted), and Crooked Hillary. Now watch leftards turn the practice back at "One-Term Donald".
* Faithless electors could yet keep Mr. Trump from officially becoming President-elect on December 19. There [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Isnt that like the whole idea of having an electoral college? To prevent a popular but terrible candidate from getting in.
Why would it working as intended be a problem?
Re:#1TermDonald (Score:5, Informative)
Electors not following the voters' will would set a very ugly precedent. Or, did this happen before? Was a winning president ever rejected by electors?
Not following the voters' will is the entire purpose of the electoral college. They have disagreed with the popular vote five times in history. The last time was this last time. Before that, the last time gave us a Dubya presidency. Tell us again what the EC should do, please.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Agreed. Do they wish to stifle free speech?
I see people ragging Fox News, CNBC, MSNBC et. al.
Fuck 'em. I can (and they can) say whatever they wish. This isn't China or Afghanistan.
Re:Global Warming seems lesser since Trump (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Global Warming seems lesser since Trump (Score:5, Funny)
You believe those leftard satellites and liberal thermometers? kek.
There is no real evidence for the laws of physics, just conjecture by Soros-funded so-called "scientists". It's all an SJW marxist plot, and the brave journalists at Breitbart have confirmed this, but of course, you don't want to see the truth because it doesn't fit your fact-based agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Alas, PopeRatzo forgot to add a /sarcasm tag, and was modded down.
Or maybe the moderator is a victim of Poe's Law.
Or maybe the moderator is not a victim of Poe's Law, but just doesn't like the fact that the essential practice of science is not political.
Re: (Score:2)
Except I don't think she is coming for 2 reasons. First, there is no way that woman still sleeps with that fat orange pig. Second, it is a step down from the gold leaf walled castle she sleeps in now.
Re: (Score:2)
Melanomia already said she's not moving to the White House. She has to stay in New York because she's banging Carmelo Anthony.
Re: (Score:2)
Who wants to be the one to break it to him?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.
Re: (Score:2)
How can you tell? The genuine deniers come up with far nuttier things here on a regular basis.
Poe's law, my man, Poe's law.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hell, where the softer bits of your nether regions, are everybody else's favourite lunch!"