How Climate Change Deniers Rise To the Top in Google Searches (nytimes.com) 359
If you searched for the words "climate change" into Google, until earlier this week, you could have gotten an unexpected result: ads that call global warming a hoax. "Scientists blast climate alarm," said one that appeared at the top of the search results page during a recent search, pointing to a website, DefyCCC, that asserted: "Nothing has been studied better and found more harmless than anthropogenic CO2 release." Another ad proclaimed: "The Global Warming Hoax -- Why the Science Isn't Settled," linking to a video containing unsupported assertions, including that there is no correlation between rising levels of greenhouse gases and higher global temperatures. These references were first reported by The New York Times (the link may be paywalled). From a report: America's technology giants have come under fire for their role in the spread of fake news during the 2016 presidential campaign, prompting promises from Google and others to crack down on sites that spread disinformation. Less scrutinized has been the way tech companies continue to provide a mass platform for the most extreme sites among those that use false or misleading science to reject the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. Google's search page has become an especially contentious battleground between those who seek to educate the public on the established climate science and those who reject it. Not everyone who uses Google will see climate denial ads in their search results. Google's algorithms use search history and other data to tailor ads to the individual, something that is helping to create a highly partisan internet. A recent search for "climate change" or "global warming" from a Google account linked to a New York Times climate reporter did not return any denial ads. The top results were ads from environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund. But when the same reporter searched for those terms using private browsing mode, which helps mask identity information from Google's algorithms, the ad for DefyCCC popped up.
[...] The climate denialist ads are an example of how contrarian groups can use the internet's largest automated advertising systems to their advantage, gaming the system to find a mass platform for false or misleading claims.
[...] The climate denialist ads are an example of how contrarian groups can use the internet's largest automated advertising systems to their advantage, gaming the system to find a mass platform for false or misleading claims.
Someone said once... (Score:2, Insightful)
The NY Times hates competition.
The difference is... (Score:5, Insightful)
The NY Times is a source of curated information.
Google is an index of the internet. The internet is a cesspool. Google is an index of a cesspool.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The difference is... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They curate articles that fit their bias. Even if they collect and publish a specific flavor of garbage, it's still garbage.
The NY Times does not publish garbage; it's one of the few quality newspapers still available in the USA. They do lean left, but their articles are usually well researched, factual and professionally written. I find them similar to the Wall Street Journal, who leans right, but also usually has professionally written and well researched articles (you just need to ignore the batshit crazy editorial pages).
I find it's useful to get your information from diverse sources, in particular ones with whose position y
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Google's search page has become an especially contentious battleground between those who seek to educate the public on the established climate science and those who reject it."
I love the phrase, "established climate science". Feynman would have used it in a lecture.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re:Someone said once... (Score:5, Insightful)
That quote is rather irrelevant, unless you've got a few spare Earths laying around to run experiments on..?
Assuming you don't, our next best option is to model the data we have as accurately as possible and make predictions based on those models.
So far all of the models predict "we're fucked if we don't change our ways" even if they don't all agree on how badly or how soon we're fucked, with some even suggesting we're past the point of changing our ways and fucked no matter what.
There's a reason why the climate scientists (and yes, I feel justified using the generalized term!) report actual data generated from actual models while the deniers tend to go with things like opinion polls -- the deniers just don't have a whole lot of data to work with and much of what they do have is pretty questionable.
Re: (Score:2)
All models are inaccurate, some are more accurate than others.
Multiple peer reviewed papers have proved that the current climate models are actually rather good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Someone said once... (Score:2)
Re: Someone said once... (Score:2)
My speedometer is also inaccurate; wildly so when iâ(TM)m in court on a speeding ticket.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When the observations are still within the 95% confidence range I'd say it's difficult to call them wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
"Google's search page has become an especially contentious battleground between those who seek to educate the public on the established climate science and those who reject it."
I love the phrase, "established climate science". Feynman would have used it in a lecture.
I think it is pretty funny when climate science deniers try to use Feynman quotes to discredit climate science. I really doubt he'd be on your side in the issue. I think he'd ask you "Where is your evidence?" But I could be wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
It's funny when propagandists have to label skeptics as deniers. They spout dogma, not science.
Of course. The fact that "they spout dogma, not science" is exactly why they are called deniers, and not skeptics.
Re: Someone said once... (Score:2)
In this case Google is allowing each individual to "control" their own media. If the messages surrounding that individual are otherwise controlled, then that influence trends into Google's system. Such results in Google being "controlled" or influenced by sources outside of the user. This is the nature of the USA, for better or worse.
Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is a for-profit advertising company. You say they present ads from people who pay them to do so? And they tailor your search results to make you think they're the best search engine so you look at more ads? Shocking.
Either legislate unbiased search and advertising and give up the pretence of pure capitalism, or eat your dogfood and quit complaining.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either legislate unbiased search and advertising and give up the pretence of pure capitalism, or eat your dogfood and quit complaining.
If being hypocritical and complaining gets you what you want, people will be hypocritical and complain.
These are ADVERTISING COMPANIES (Score:5, Insightful)
Advertising companies take money and spread lies. Get over it. Google does it on your searches. Facebook does it on your friendships.
The system can be gamed. (Score:2)
Well played (Score:2, Funny)
The AGW zealots posted this right when everyone else is too busy shoveling global warming out of their driveways.
Re: (Score:2)
That's when keeping the faith is most important. Any religious leader knows that.
Re:Well played (Score:4, Insightful)
The AGW zealots posted this right when everyone else is too busy shoveling global warming out of their driveways.
Global Warming -> Climate
The stuff in your driveway -> Weather
Learn the difference. That is all.
Re:Well played (Score:5, Insightful)
The AGW zealots posted this right when everyone else is too busy shoveling global warming out of their driveways.
It sure reads like you don't understand the difference between climate change and the weather. The weather is going to become increasingly volatile which means you are going to get more extreme weather patterns (larger range of temperature) thus altering the climate. Ergo climate change. However, the overall temperature of the planet is still going to rise. Ergo global warming.
Please educate yourself on this very important topic. [skepticalscience.com]
Re: Well played (Score:2)
Yes! This article is to my knowledge the best concise description of the warming trend as well as increase in extreme temperatures:
https://www.nytimes.com/intera... [nytimes.com]
It should be noted that this is just data. No models, no predictions, just historical data.
Re: (Score:2)
So getting hotter is Climate Change, colder is also Climate Change, and staying exactly where you are is Climate Change.
In fact, we can expect all of those things to happen — but locally, and in different places. That's why we call weather a "chaotic" system. When you put energy into the system, you get unpredictable outputs.
Re: (Score:2)
Get used to it. The arctic displacement that is becoming the new winter normal is a direct result of global warming. Lower differentials between the arctic and tropics means a weaker polar jet. A weaker polar jet means the arctic air it used to keep bottled up in the arctic can be pushed south by warm air masses.
Take a look at a site like climate reanalyzer and check out the temperature anomalies. The cold blob over North America USED TO sit up in the arctic. But look what's up there now. Or look at the res
Re: (Score:2)
There's lots of science and news for nerds that doesn't involve Linux or Open Source, and always has been. Why should /. change that just to suit you?
Really Fake News From Climate Deniers ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Last Week MsMash posted a story about how cheap Green Electricity was in Germany all the while never bothering to mention the cost to the consumer was $0.30/KWH
Seems there's plenty of shit to go around but as usual some people don't think their shit stinks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And then you get the commenters who point out that Germany supposedly replaces nuclear with more fossil fuels, but they fail to admit that the share of electricity from fossil fuels is actually decreasing at the same time as nuclear is decreasing, and that the per capita electricity consumption from fossil fuels is 7.2MWh per year in the US, compared to just 3.3MWh per year in Germany. People in the US actually consume more electricity from fossil fuels than people in Germany consume in total (6.6MWh). The
Re: (Score:3)
Liar. Here is the story:
https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
Note that it was not posted by MsMash. Also, it doesn't claim that electricity in Germany is cheap, you made that up too. All it says is that some big consumers (industries) were paid to use energy for a while, which is 100% true.
Re: (Score:2)
Liar it does claim it was cheap
My error on MsMash but it's 6 of one half a dozen of the other.
What's your excuse for deliberately misreading that ?
Re: (Score:2)
The best lies have a kernel of truth.
Pointing out that the spot price spiked negative because of a rapid glut is not the same as saying "electricity is cheap" which implies some sort of continuing condition.
Trying ot equate the two is deeply dishonest and the intent is to deceive.
Re: (Score:2)
From the story
The cost of electricity in Germany has decreased so dramatically in the past few days that major consumers have actually been paid to use power from the grid.
https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
Also if you are going to point out electricity is taxed you need to point out renewables are heavily subsidized
http://fortune.com/2017/03/14/... [fortune.com]
There is a difference between fake news and incomplete news.
Ill go with
Half the truth is often a great lie
–Benjamin Franklin
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
See, you can't objectively explain what's going on yourself, yet you act like any news that doesn't exactly report the entire story with all its nuances is just as bad as a bold faced lie. That's asinine.
It is true that the cost of electricity dipped below zero at the wholesale level, and there are indeed some large consumers of electricity who can take advantage of that. That is by design. The negative price represents the cost that some power plants would incur by throttling their output, as in, it costs
Re:Really Fake News From Climate Deniers ? (Score:4, Insightful)
What it all comes down to is that you need to have an education to make sense of the news.
You need an education to function in society. And IMHO, you should not need to pay beyond your means to receive it. And part of that education should be the ability to recognize rational, fact-based statements from skewed opinions laced with logical fallacies.
There is a difference between fake news and incomplete news.
This. And I'll go further: fake news is created by fake reporters. It is a deliberate fabrication, intended to enrage or frighten the reader. It is not the same as news with errors or even news with a bias. Incomplete news is still news, but with a disingenuous taint (if done deliberately.)
This is why fact-checking websites (like snopes or politifact) have a gradual scale on which they rate the truth of statements by public individuals, and not just a true/false assessment. The truth is an absolute, but how someone conveys it can be complicated.
Re: (Score:3)
Just what is a "Real Reporter" ? Somebody who says things you like ?
A fair question. My answer: someone who has obtained a degree in journalism at an accredited school of higher learning, and who has demonstrated a commitment to reporting the truth, based on the standards of the profession of journalism.
TL/DR: those who propagated "pizzagate" were fake reporters. (You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.)
There are plenty of real reporters who propagate opinions I don't agree with. But I don't question the legitimacy of their reports, as long as they ad
"Leftist" sites see 30-70% fewer Google referrals (Score:2)
At the same time, Google's "new algorithm" moves many long-time leftist web sites way, way down in search results.
The "World Socialist Website" has been documenting this, since they are major victims of it.
"An open letter to Google: Stop the censorship of the Internet! Stop the political blacklisting of the World Socialist Web Site! "
https://www.wsws.org/en/articl... [wsws.org]
"The conspiracy to censor the Internet"
https://www.wsws.org/en/articl... [wsws.org]
Naahhh... (Score:3)
Because (Score:2)
You'd be surprised how well money works in the new world of faith and money based science.
A few calls and bakheesh from the right people, and baby, we're rockin' a 6000 year old flat earth.
SEO gamers are useless (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Decided to go old school and use the yellow pages (the big paper book with yellow pages) instead and it was far more informative.
Yes, you have to do that because yp.com has a bunch of "serves your area" bullshit hits from miles and miles away.
hmm (Score:2)
Normal? (Score:2)
With that said, isn't this how Google's PageRank algorithm (or its successor) works? A sites popularity is determined by the amount of sites linking to it. Unfortunately, I think there's just a lot of people who are climate change deniers who link to these sources.
Isn't this the obvious, simple answer?
More cries for a ministry of truth... (Score:2)
... Orwell called it.
Re: (Score:3)
Bring back kuro5hin.
Re:I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think this article is a politics article rather than a science article, you might be looking for a place like Free Republic, or InfoWars.
Re: I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot (Score:3)
Nice dogmatism, broham!
Re: (Score:2)
Real science doesn't label critics as “deniers”. Politics in the name of science does that.
Re: (Score:2)
Real science doesn't label critics as "deniers".
No, but it does label non critical denialists as deniers.
Just click “I feel lucky” on Google. (Score:3)
You should ask your favourite editor at Breitbart or Russia Today to start a Tech news section.
And please stay there. Your crocodile tears over how [insert name of news site here] has become so utterly useless and lame and how, oh it’s so unfortunate, but everybody should stop reading it unless it ceases and desists from publishing anything critical of [insert name of party or politician] and be so unfairly biased against [insert name of loony conspiracy theory here]... are not welcome in discussion a
Re: (Score:2)
My first thought of a response would be that I don't care what you believe. Matters of opinion aren't within our range of control except perhaps in aggregate through mass peer pressure.
It's better to turn masses, rather than worrying about individuals. No matter what we do, people will accept it over time simply due to the appreciable effects of climate change itself. If they don't, or it's too late, then the species at large deserve their fate. Earth will burn us off and the Holocene will end. This outcome
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't deny climate change or the man-made CO2 volume. What I deny is that I give a fuck. I might have cared before it became an SJW pet issue and another reason for the far-left to shake their finger in my face.
So you're going to screw over the planet and a lot of humanity to shake your finger in the face of "the far-left"? (actually, everybody but the far-right).
The extremists on both sides made it partisan.
No, the major corporations with a vested interest in a fossil fuel economy made it partisan.
The international idea that Americans should compensate the rest of the word for emitting CO2 earlier than them.
Not just Americans, also Europeans, Canadians, Australians, Japanese, and even Columbians [wikipedia.org]. And the retribution for historical emissions is one way to frame it... if not for the obvious inconsistency with Japan's large contribution.
A better way to frame it is when there's an important job to do you suck it up and get it done. And if that involves wealthy countries lending assistance to poor countries who otherwise don't have the economic capacity to carry out those measures then you do it.
If my grandparents had a white picket fence and a CO2 monster V8 Corvette, then GOOD. I'm glad they weren't living in fucking mud huts and collecting wives.
And no rant against SJWs is complete without a completely unnecessary negative stereotype with just enough deniability so it isn't obviously racist.
Re: What if I believe but don't give a damn? (Score:2)
Colombians.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pompous assholes like you that think your species can actually change the climate in a matter of years.
What species are you, Trumpanzee?
We could change the climate in a matter of years, but only if we worked together instead of spending all our time cutting one another down on Slashdot (etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
It's pompous assholes like you that think your species can actually change the climate in a matter of years.
I'm glad you and your kind will die one day.
Pompous assholes like you who think your species can't change the climate in a matter of decades and centuries despite what the scientists tell you are going to die too. Given the future that climate scientists tell us is coming your group will probably dwindle to nothingness relatively soon.
Re: (Score:2)
So what's your solution? I tried to participate in the discussion for awhile, but got "denier" screamed at me over and over for Daring to Question The Holy Truth, and so I view the climate change discussion as a big political clusterfuck.
That doesn't make sense to me.
People express skepticism at your alternate theories, and call you names: and because they called you a name, it must be politically motivated? What?
That just doesn't make sense.
Name real solutions, that will actually solve the problem.
So: intuitively, if the high concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are causing a problem, wouldn't the resolution be to reduce the concentrations of those gases to more normal levels?
What's the issue?
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, we know about the PETM [wikipedia.org]. Now you show how a period where the rate of increase in atmospheric carbon was less than 1/10th of the current rate is applicable to today's situation.
Re:What if I believe but don't give a damn? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a problem with partisanship. That you would adhere to a position you know to be illogical simply for the sake of being consistent with your party of choice is sad. This attitude among elected officials is what drives partisanship and gridlock in Washington.
I'm a person that would be described as liberal, but I don't support gun control. Just because I think the NRA and many other anti-gun control people are stupid and annoying doesn't change my position. I'm also dismayed by some of the over-sensitivity on college campuses and in the media, but using pejoratives like "SJW" is divisive and does nothing to persuade others of this opinion.
Climate change matters. Not for the political victories of one party or another, but for the future of humanity. I don't want my children or maybe some day grandchildren to grow up in a world facing global catastrophe. Why would anyone want that? Political expediency doesn't justify immorality.
Re: What if I believe but don't give a damn? (Score:2)
I donâ(TM)t know about the history of the term, but I do know that in current usage itâ(TM)s used as a dismissive label. The OP, for example, was using it as a lazy way of dismissing his opponents without addressing the substance of their concerns. Most pejoratives donâ(TM)t historically begin as pejoratives. Regardless, itâ(TM)s the use of dismissive labels as a rhetorical strategy that I oppose (as should anyone who believes discourse ought to be governed by logic).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And a population more than 4 times the size. You have to account for population size, so you should be using figures per capita. And there's no denying that Americans are the most polluting people on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
It's much worse than that. The real problem is how people calling themselves 'scientists', yet who at the same time refuse to allow their theories to be scrutinized, and who 'adjust' their collected data, and who claim that 'the science is settled', have managed to absolutely ruin the reputation of science and scientists in general. Scientists and researchers used to be among the most respected and trusted people around. Now they're seen more as minor political stooges and tyrants rather than as objective knowledge-seekers. Modern science is now considered a form of religion by many people because of how any sort of questioning is quashed, and how little trust people have in scientists.
What a crock. Climate science is one of the most open sciences out there. You are welcome to scrutinize their theories but you need to use science to do it. The raw data is available. The reasons and ways they adjust the data are in the published literature. Climate science deniers are just butthurt because they have no effective way to counter the information climate scientists give us. If they did they would have used it by now. Refusing to accept the answers climate scientists present because you
Re: (Score:2)
First it was global warming. Then that wasnâ(TM)t proven so it shifted to climate change. Seems suspicious that there are a lot of people making a lot of money and fame off of something they canâ(TM)t even be consistent about.
What goal post shift? The International Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988.
In 1956 Gilbert Plass wrote a paper titled: "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change".
Climate change is a result of the global warming that is happening.
Re:Uh... They are the same? (Score:5, Informative)
Now and then during those 800,000 years (and more) the earth's climate has changed rapidly due to anomalous events. The Industrial Revolution is one of them.
Re:Uh... They are the same? (Score:5, Informative)
The only way you can claim that man made climate change isn't happening is by cherry picking a few studies on the subject.
Re:Uh... They are the same? (Score:5, Interesting)
Obligatory XKCD, although it only goes back 22k years:
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Perhaps the GP can post some data from earlier where there is a sudden spike like we saw in the last century.
Why not both? (Score:2)
Re:Uh... They are the same? (Score:4, Informative)
You know how they figured out the warming and cooling for those ice cores, idiot?
Thermodynamics. A planet doesn't warm and cool without reason. Along with the cyclical Milankovich cycles, anomalous events recorded in the cores correlate strongly with atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Which makes sense if had a clue about physics. In physics there's a concept called the mean free path. It's why the ozone layer that makes up a tiny fraction of our atmosphere is capable of preventing our planet from being a sterilized ball of rock. That same concept also explains why trace gases can have noticeable affects on our planet, such as those greenhouse gases that prevent our planet from becoming a snowball.
Chemistry. Physics. Thermodynamics. The atmosphere adheres to them just like everything else. There are no special set of rules that say conservation of energy is never violated EXCEPT when it comes to climate.
BTW, you can download and examine the model source code. They're built on the same physics and chemistry you use every single day without it ever even crossing your tiny little mind.
Educate yourself so the next time you don't sound like a blathering moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Alright, link me to your 800,000 years of evidence.
As for the what-if models, they worked out pretty well when the predicted, in the 1970s, the reversal of a global cooling trend that had been going on since 1940. That's pretty damn good confirmation.
Calling a model "what if" makes it sounds dodgy, but any prediction of the future is "what if" -- even if that prediction is that there will be no change. Predicting that the atmosphere will warm because of some other reason is also relying on a "what if" mode
Re:Uh... They are the same? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have 800,000 years of direct, measurable evidence that the earth's climate cycles between warming and cooling, and that we are, in fact, in the fifth such cycle.
Ah, a new theory. Here's a basic sniff test: In all the cycles over the past 800 000 years, what caused the climate to change?
And what is causing it to change this time?
You, on the other hand, have what-if models that account only for unending warming, something which hasn't happened in 800,000 years.
The only models I've seen suggesting an unending warming cycle are those used by denialists. Which is to say, if you can't adequately explain the current warming, then you cannot rule out a never ending warming cycle. So: what is causing the current warming event?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have 800,000 years of direct, measurable evidence that the earth's climate cycles between warming and cooling, and that we are, in fact, in the fifth such cycle.
Exactly. And we are currently in the cooling part of the cycle,
But the temperature is going up.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I think it's better to go with the 800,000-year-old patterns that I can directly observe in ice core samples, rather than your wonky spreadsheets. And if you want to make an extraordinary claim that 800,000 years of climate cycles are suddenly coming to an end, brother, you'd better have a whale of a lot of extraordinary hard EVIDENCE. Not spreadsheets.
Of course those 800,000 years of ice age cycles have never seen an atmospheric CO2 level of 405 ppm. That might make a difference.
Re: Uh... They are the same? (Score:2)
Have you examined the much greater than 800000 years of cycles and events of atmospheric carbon loading? Or of industrial/civilizational revolutions and their effects?
Re:Proven? (Score:5, Funny)
And the direct satellite evidence?
Faked.
The future chinese brought back transmitters from the future to send signals because there are no satellites because, the truth is, there is no space. Space, and the moon, are a vast liberal conspiracy. That's how the whole thing started: Fourier surmised that the reason the earth's temperature was so different from the moon's is because of the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but he would say that, because he is a zombie Knights Templar who is/was/will be in league with the time travelling chinese.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course climate science is falsifiable. But maybe not on a time scale you're comfortable with. Yet climate models continue to predict pretty much what has been happening even if they're not as precise as you'd like them to be.
The other thing to keep in mind is that climate science is composed of thousands of different theories brought together to form a more complete overall picture. It's those subtheories that you really need to falsify.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it? Not according to this climate-scientist from Australia [theconversation.com], nor according to this professor [huffingtonpost.com] concurring with this blogger [dailykos.com] (both of them hilariously repeating in earnest this earlier satire [thepeoplescube.com]).
No, I don't. As I explained to you before, the burden of proof is not on me, but on those, who want to compel me — on pain of higher taxes [insideclimatenews.org], loss of freedoms [theguardian.com], and even actual criminal prosecutions [newsweek.com] — to change my w
Re: (Score:2)
Oh spot the deceptive little man here!
"Proven"? Talk about false or misleading claims! Not only has it not been proven, its adherents admit that their theories are unfalsifiable
Very clever! You put in a link that made it looked like you had a citation for how they admit that but all you did was link to "falsifiability". Very nice, and it's interesting that you have to resort to a deceptive style of arguing.
If for example the IPCC's pridictions of what was to happen in the future did not come to pass, that w
Not proven, not provable (Score:2)
It is quite obvious, I simply screwed up the link. This [theconversation.com] is, what I meant to include, separately from the link explaining, what falsifiability is, and why it is a requirement for real science:
Re: (Score:2)
Our whole argument in this thread is that, by the purported scientists' own admission - now properly cited - their very discipline is not falsifiable. Your babbling about IPCC is not much different from the Bible-thumpers' predictions about His wrath.
Just because you don't understand the difference between science and religion does not make that true.
The IPCC made falsifiable predictions based on scientific models and data.
The predictions came true.
And yet you claim the field is not falsifiable by dismissin
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't citing any — which is especially curious because you blasted me for not providing accurate citations before... And, of course, even if some such predictions did come true, it is not proof. Unless this guy's predictions [rightwingwatch.org] make him a scientist too. California did get the punishment [occidentaldissent.com], you know, a rather obvious one [cnn.com], which is much more than one can say about IPCC's results.
Re: (Score:3)
But it doesn't change for magical reasons. There are physical processes behind those changes. That is exactly what climate scientists study.
Re: (Score:3)
there are a lot of people making a lot of money and fame
Who's making a lot of money? If they are so famous, how come you can't name any of them?
The big money is on the denialist side. The Koch brothers made $6B last year.
This. Climate scientists are not making lots of money. They survive on modest-sized grants to do their research. Competition for grants is significant. Not a great way to get rich.
And before the deniers reply with apoplectic rants about how scientists are compromised by their need to compete for research money, let's remind ourselves that science, like all human endeavours, has its flaws and bad actors, but it has adopted a self-correcting discipline that seeks and reviews experimental/observational validat
Re: (Score:3)
The ones profiting off Climate change are the sleazy politicans that use it as a bludgeoning weapon and scam companies like the solar roadway bullshit, which in turn is used by the deniers as a weapon to prove they're right as "only scammers support the hypothesis".
And then we all burn to death in the end because nobody was actually interested in fixing the shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They do make a lot of money, unlike real scientists that have to compete for the leftovers, the politcorrrect crowd just gets the lion share of the grants. That's how science is being controlled.
An assertion without evidence to back it up. Really just an assumption on your part. You know that the grants, at least from the Federal Government are all listed in detail on line. Why hasn't some person making this assumption actually done the work to compile and correlate the data about these grants to prove their assumption? Could it be they're afraid of being proven wrong?
Actually I wouldn't be surprised if a few people have started to put it together then quietly dropped the idea after looking at
Re: Why the goal post shift? (Score:2)
Wow, you really come off as a petulant dunce.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, did you have lies of your own to add, or were you just fucking off?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When one isn't an expert in a certain field and lacks the time/ability/desire to become an expert in said field, it's only logical to defer to expert opinion. No one has the ability to be an expert in every field, so everyone has to do this if they want to have a somewhat coherent understanding of the world. Relying on scientific consensus is something everyone does to arrive at logical conclusions. Even scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, my bad, you actually want to base results on popularity, not scientific validity.
You're basing your opinions on popularity too. You think going conter to the majority makes you smart. You also like having the opinion that's popular with people that you identify with politically.
Your opinions have NOTHING to do with scientific validity.
On the other side, the IPCC's first set of future predictions have matched what happened when the future arrived to within the confidence intervals.
4Che (Score:2)
He could probably cure all those worries and aggressive tendencies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A wee bit paranoid there, bub? So you envision "conspiracies" of "organized campaigns" plotting against you?
Any time two or more people get together to screw over a third (or more) it is called a conspiracy. When multiple major interests cooperate to create a condition in which they collectively control a market to achieve a common goal of maximizing profit, it is called a cartel. Big Oil is the classic example of cartel economics.
Throughout history, one industry after another has spent money to deliberately deceive both lawmakers and the public as to the hazards involved in their products. Sugar, tobacco, and oi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, all facts you don't like are the work of Russian agents; it's not like this information can be trivially confirmed.
Re: (Score:2)
Soros is a REAL NAZI, FFS!
And he's the Left's BFF.
All you SJWs on the Left screaming Nazi Nazi REEE REEE! better realize that your favorite Leftist groups and organizations are funded by a fucking real, actual, documented, Holocaust-enforcing Nazi.
You do know that Soros is Jewish, that he and his family had to pretend to be Christians to keep from getting shipped off to the camps by actual Nazis, and that he was 15 years old when the war ended, don't you?
Of course you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes man has affected the atmosphere.... but how significant is it really?
The answer to that question has been known for years. The answer is "significant". You are not being skeptical if you are still asking the same question over and over again when it has long been answered. You are being a denier.
Re: Climate Change is Real, the Cause is Unknown (Score:2)
That's a really interesting point that the climate science community has discuss thoroughly over the past 30 years and understands. If you're interested in understanding why this lag has happened in the past, check out this:
https://skepticalscience.com/c... [skepticalscience.com]
That short story is that yes, CO2 has lagged behind temperature over the past several hundred thousand years because CO2 hasn't driven those temperature changes - those changes happened due to orbital variations. In fact, during those periods CO2 was rel