Facebook Overrides Fact-Checks When Climate Science Is 'Opinion' (arstechnica.com) 225
Facebook says its fact-checking process is one of the ways it plans to fight disinformation heading into the U.S. presidential election, but as Ars Technica points out, opinion content is largely exempt from review. "New reports about the way the site handles the fact-checking of climate science stories [...] make clear that fact-checking can only work as well as Facebook allows it to," reports Ars. "While Facebook has heavily invested in efforts to stem the overwhelming tide of false and misleading COVID-19 information, for example, it does not heavily fact-check information related to climate change." From the report: Rarely reviewed, however, is different from never. "When someone posts content based on false facts -- even if it's an op-ed or editorial -- it is still eligible for fact-checking," Facebook communications director Andy Stone told the NYT. "We're working to make this clearer in our guidelines so our fact checkers can use their judgment to determine whether it is an attempt to mask false information under the guise of opinion." The line has been clear as mud, so far, and Facebook has at least twice overturned the rulings of climate scientists who determine content to be partly or fully false. The first time, a group that partners with Facebook as one of its fact-checkers -- Climate Feedback -- marked a 2019 Washington Examiner op-ed as false. A climate-change denial organization, the CO2 Coalition, complained to Facebook about the fact-check, and the content warning was then removed.
More recently, an article about climate change published by The Daily Wire, a right-leaning site that generates very high traffic on Facebook, also earned a "partly false" rating from Climate Feedback. The author of the Daily Wire article publicly complained about being "censored," and Facebook staff reviewed the fact-check. Popular Information obtained internal Facebook documents showing that the Facebook staff agreed with the "partly false" rating. An email thread that alerted high-ranking company executives to the kerfuffle showed that the fact-checking and communications teams apparently wanted to leave it alone, but the policy team said its "stakeholders" thought the fact-check was "biased." The notice no longer appears on Facebook shares of the Daily Wire story. A group of senators led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) last week demanded Facebook explain its inconsistent position on fact-checking.
"Notably, since Facebook issued a blog post on its efforts to combat misinformation on Facebook in April 2017, disinformation campaigns on the platform have continued and expanded, often with state-sponsored support," the senators wrote. "If Facebook is truly 'committed to fighting the spread of false news on Facebook and Instagram,' the company must immediately acknowledge in its fact-checking process that the climate crisis is not a matter of opinion and act to close loopholes that allow climate disinformation to spread on its platform."
Further reading: The New York Times has an article explaining Facebook's reasoning behind how it handles climate change.
More recently, an article about climate change published by The Daily Wire, a right-leaning site that generates very high traffic on Facebook, also earned a "partly false" rating from Climate Feedback. The author of the Daily Wire article publicly complained about being "censored," and Facebook staff reviewed the fact-check. Popular Information obtained internal Facebook documents showing that the Facebook staff agreed with the "partly false" rating. An email thread that alerted high-ranking company executives to the kerfuffle showed that the fact-checking and communications teams apparently wanted to leave it alone, but the policy team said its "stakeholders" thought the fact-check was "biased." The notice no longer appears on Facebook shares of the Daily Wire story. A group of senators led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) last week demanded Facebook explain its inconsistent position on fact-checking.
"Notably, since Facebook issued a blog post on its efforts to combat misinformation on Facebook in April 2017, disinformation campaigns on the platform have continued and expanded, often with state-sponsored support," the senators wrote. "If Facebook is truly 'committed to fighting the spread of false news on Facebook and Instagram,' the company must immediately acknowledge in its fact-checking process that the climate crisis is not a matter of opinion and act to close loopholes that allow climate disinformation to spread on its platform."
Further reading: The New York Times has an article explaining Facebook's reasoning behind how it handles climate change.
Rather sad (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course there is never ever ever the slightest bias in the âoefact checker.â
They all have bias!!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Rather sad (Score:5, Informative)
Stephen Jay Gould:
The reason that was an effective strategy was that I knew that most people, most members, didn't know what the motto "Nullius in verba" meant. It looks like it means "Words do not matter" or "Do not pay any attention to words," since nullius means "nothing" and verba is "word." So most people think it means that words mean nothing and you have to do the experiment.
But nullius is genitive singular; it can't mean that. It means "of nothing" or "of no one." I knew what the motto meant. I knew that it was a fragment of a statement from Horace — a famous quotation from a poem, in which he says, "I am not bound to swear allegiance to the dogmas of any master." Nullius addictus jurare in verba magister. It's "Nullius in verba," or "In the words of no (master)." It's just a fragment from a larger line.
"That's all I'm doing," I said. "I'm saying that we are not bound to swear allegiance to the dogmas of any master; I'm here to present an alternative viewpoint that's consistent with your own society. How can you castigate me?"
However, I would argue that unlike in Gould's case, where they were largely arguing about the past (paleontology) so it was difficult to verify predictions, in this case the predictions have been pretty well verified. The fact that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere leads to a warmer climate can be demonstrated experimentally and aligns with the real-world data.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That means all else held constant.... but its the weather, all else is never held constant
Compared to other things that could change such as orbital cycles of Earth or the arrangement of continents, the recent CO2 level changes are virtually instantaneous, so in the opposite direction, compared to the recent CO2 level changes the other things are held virtually constant.
Re: (Score:3)
There is NO provision for falsification in the model.
That makes zero sense. If there was "NO provision for falsification in the model", what about all those screeching assmonkeys all over the Internet going on about how the models are wrong? They can't be wrong if they're unfalsifiable. If the models are wrong they've been falsified.
Re: (Score:3)
Three quarters of the data is estimated, interpolated, or just made up.
There is NO provision for falsification in the model.
That's just plain not true. Now you can't make another Earth and perform experiments obviously, but you can do things to verify hypothesises and models. You can cross check data from multiple sources and from multiple biomes. You can build models using data not from the last decade and then test to see if it predicted the last decade. You can do a great many things to test and verify models and hypothesises in climate science. You just don't want to believe its true so you find every reason to deny it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rather sad (Score:5, Informative)
So far none of the doomsday predictions made more than 30 years ago have happened
Doomsday, no, otherwise we wouldn't be posting on Slashdot.
Warning signs, yes, lots of them:
- more severe storms
- more severe floodings
- more severe droughts
- more severe wildfires
- more severe heat waves
- disappearing glaciers and other fresh water sources
Just a few sources:
https://climate.nasa.gov/effec... [nasa.gov]
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what... [usgs.gov]
http://www.businessofgovernmen... [businessofgovernment.org]
Re:Rather sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Hint: Your lifetime is not the context in which, "more"
is measured.
Re: (Score:3)
Hint: Your lifetime is not the context in which, "more" is measured.
Why not?
In general, climate changes are too slow to be seen within one human lifespan. But this is not the normal situation, climate change is now happening fast enough that we can see the changes over periods as short as a few years. If you're trying to argue that the changes we're seeing are just normal variation there's plenty of longer-term evidence (orders of magnitude longer than a human lifespan) that you're wrong.
Re: Rather sad (Score:3)
Also, my tap water is faster than ever. There is obviously no shortage of water. Or maybe I juts like to pick one variable that suits my agenda and then wait for it be debunked to pick another variable, when talking about general trends that involve the earth.
Re:Rather sad (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all in favor of not polluting but I am still waiting for the Maldives islands to sink below the ocean, which I think Al Gore said would have happened by now.
Right, so to discredit the work of scientists, you're not looking at predictions by scientists, you're looking at predictions by politicians. That makes perfect sense for someone who confuses science and politics.
Re:Rather sad (Score:5, Insightful)
LOL - time to burn some Karma I guess.
Yeah being an unwitting stooge for big oil will have that effect.
When a politician makes some prediction, however outlandish, scientists are silent.
Scientists don't own a megaphone remotely comparable to Al Gore. They only way you'd hear about scientists is if a sufficiently large news organisation wanted an expert to share the opinion that "yes climate change is real, but Al Gore is wrong in the details". Oh and you'd have to spot the 5 minute segment it was on and once it's gone it's gone and won't rumble round for years like Al Gore.
Go and actually speak to and more importantly LISTEN to some scientists. You being too lazy and ornery to listen is not the same as them being silent.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone Scientists publicly came out and said Gore was full of shit, you don't think the legions of those skeptical of Climate Change wouldn't have instantly picked that up and applied their own megaphone?
No, we don't hear about it because it doesn't happen. or perhaps you can provide a link to a scientist publicly disavowing Gore's predictions.
As for your "unwitting stooge" remark, that is where you fail because you just made the transition from Science to religion. You just became the Antifa of Science
Re:Rather sad (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone Scientists publicly came out and said Gore was full of shit
But they wouldn't have said that, because that's not how scientists think or speak (in public, at least). They'd have had to say something like "Our models indicate that the Maldives being underwater by year X is outside of the probable range of outcomes. It's somewhat more likely that by year X the Maldives will be at significant risk of regular flooding during extreme weather events. However, note that the accuracy of these models may be influenced by factors Y and Z, and that several more years of data and analysis would be required to obtain any specific projections for the Maldives in particular, which may potentially be protected by factors M, N and P. In addition there may be other confounding factors not yet identified."
Scientists are trained to be precise and to focus on provable (or at least scientifically-justifiable) claims, and to clearly identify their assumptions and the ways in their conclusions might be affected by what they don't know. This makes reporters' eyes glaze over, not to mention their viewers. Also, it's likely that Gore's claim was based on analysis that showed that the Maldives being under water by year X was possible, if not likely. So, even if they'd wanted to simplify and respond forcefully, they'd have had to say:
"Al Gore is full of shit! Well, probably. Most likely, in fact. It's not completely impossible that he's right, but we don't think so."
That would be a pretty weak story, even for climate deniers.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists don't make the kind of predictions you want, like "it will rain tomorrow". They say "there is a 70% chance of rain tomorrow".
They can never satisfy you because you will just claim that 70% is too vague and you aren't going to carry a commie umbrella when BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION there is a 30% chance you won't get wet.
That's the game you play, we know it well.
Re: (Score:3)
maybe you should take your expertise with verifiable data to them and prove to them how stupid the scientists have been and all their work is complete nonsense.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Say it was totally wrong and we """wasted""" huge amounts of money on building clean energy, clean transport, better buildings etc. The world was cleaned up but climate change turned out to be a Chinese hoax.
Is that bad?
Re: (Score:3)
keep [britannica.com]
Yet one of the most-shocking parts of the movie, a sequence of imagery depicting flooding scenarios driven by projected sea-level rise, is becoming very real—especially in some of the low-lying islands in the Pacific and the Maldives in the Indian Ocean.
waiting [reuters.com]
The tropical Maldives may lose entire islands unless it can quickly access cheap financing to fight the impact of climate change, its foreign minister said. . . .
In 2014, more than 100 of the archipelago’s inhabited islands were already reporting erosion, and around 30 islands are identified as severely eroded.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How did this shit get rated +5 on a supposedly scientific site?
The earth will change, yes.
Just not at the rate it's changing in 100 years without some catastrophic event like a meteor strike, super-volcano, or, well, excessive human activity.
You cannot compare a change from the Antarctic going from being fairly tropical, to an arctic wasteland in millions of years, to it going from an arctic wasteland to tropical in a hundred years, which is precisely where it is on some days already, hence the forest fires
Re: (Score:2)
We have already fully entered the interglacial and would be expected to cool back down again in the next few thousand years, but instead the temperature is rising faster than evidence of past increases in temperature during interglacial periods.
Antarctica used to be further north, and ocean currents and wi
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with that statement about CO2 is that the climate is warming and cooling at different rates than the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and are not easily predictable
Actually it's not. The problem is that you expect for something to correlate that they need to perfectly line up on a graph. There is a temporal element to the CO2 emissions vs average global temperatures and that temporal element is easily modelled based on data we have going back thousands of years. Now to you the layperson (clearly) what is currently happening in the world would look like a deviation which shows that the two are not correlated. But to scientists and statisticians it is just a variable su
Re: (Score:3)
You'll also have to explain how you get 95% of the scientists to run a conspiracy with so many people involved with no-one breaking ranks. A bit like the moon landing denying idiots who don't realise that if the landings didn't happen that Russia would do their best to say the landings didn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a nonsensical argument. Evidence is great, but it still has to be collated, interpreted and judged. You want verification, predictions, evidence? There is mountains and mountains of it out there, in original research papers, in reviews, in massive collaboration reports.
As for "make it accurate", again, this does not make sense. Make it as accurate as is possible, and clearly report the degree of margins of error, the room for uncertainty and doubt. Again, this has been done in extensive detail.
It is
Re:Rather sad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You may as well burn democracy on the same alter while you're at it for the same reason. Someone's political speech will invariably be "louder" than someone else's
Re: (Score:2)
They all have bias!!
While it's true that he who chooses the fact checker censors the media, it's not specifically relevant here.
It's a fact that it's my opinion that climate change is too poorly understood to make quantitative economic trade-offs. One can disagree with that opinion, but it remains a fact that it is my opinion.
Now if Facebook wants to decorate that with some sort of "see what the experts say" link, it's their servers, but that is certainly the act of a publisher. At that point, they are publishing their own o
Re: (Score:3)
A bias towards the truth is acceptable. A bias towards allowing misleading or false narratives is what everyone should be worried about, regardless of political stances. The truth is more important that stupid and ephemeral politics, and it should not fall victim to political hotheads who believe that the ends justify the means.
Even having an official notice saying "We believe this story is false" goes a long way to correct a problem, and it is not censorship either. People can still disagree in the comm
Well ... (Score:2)
"Notably, since Facebook issued a blog post on its efforts to combat misinformation on Facebook in April 2017, disinformation campaigns on the platform have continued and expanded, often with state-sponsored support," the senators wrote.
... that's their opinion.
totalitarian (Score:2, Insightful)
"demanded Facebook explain" (Score:2)
This would be a good point to tell the inquisitioners to fuck off.
Facebook doesn't have to explain anything
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Inside Out (Score:2)
"The boxes fall to the ground, with facts and opinions landing in a mixed-up pile. Joy, who's concerned over the matter, says, "Oh no! These facts and opinions look so similar!" However, Bing Bong calms her down, responding, "Ah, don't worry about it — happens all the time!"
Fact checking is not so simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Fact check this statement: "pi = 7" That's fairly easy for anyone familiar with geometry. Now fact check something like this: "The American Academy of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) says that face masks are not effective and preventing the spread of Covid-19." Now waiiit a moment here. The AAPS, which is a political organization named to fool people into thinking it represents the medical community, does indeed say this. But since most people would assume from the name that they are something like the ADA, AAP, CDC, or WHO - they might get the wrong idea. So nothing here is not fact. And really, the only thing misleading is the name of the organization. So what is a fact checker to do? And what the heck automated system is going to have a half-decent shot of flagging this for review without a hard-coded listed of jerkbutt organizations like the AAPS, or without just flagging every post with "mask" in it.
This ain't easy folks. You can't force feed people truth. Instead: educate your kids!!!! I'm out of hope for the dopes. Just make sure the next generation isn't so gullible.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, yes. The problem is that lying had gotten industrialized in the last 100 years or so. A long time, it was a niche and you could just force views on people (as religion and authoritarian forms of government have done for so long). But then this idea of "democracy" cropped up and, after some confusion, many found it profitable to manipulate people into thinking whatever they wanted them to think instead of just forcing the issue with threats and violence. A key invention was the idea of the "Bi
Re: (Score:2)
Your example is pretty easy actually. It is factually correct that they said it, fact check of that should not be too hard. Then comes the "says that" which by itself points to that it is an opinion. "are not effective", again opinion.
Fact checking should normally be done in an unbiased way and not tell you which self-proclaimed expert to
Re: (Score:2)
That's why many fact checking sites have a "misleading" label.
Facebook is not the problem. (Score:2)
I thought TFA said Christian Science (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The uneducated and ill-informed can fight it out all they want, just like they do over UFO's and Bigfoot and Elvis.
Re: (Score:2)
is is having bad effects on people
Which bad effects? Are you talking about how the Maldives are disappearing? They aren't [newscientist.com].
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Or, you could have just read the article you linked to:
"And climate change could result in bigger, more frequent storms. These could be catastrophic in the short term even if they increase the area of atolls in the long term, says Tom Spencer from the University of Cambridge. “The challenge for i
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the islands were saved from disappearing by an unanticipated effect of a changing climate (increased coral sedimentation) is your argument for it all being a hoax?
That's saying there is no gun while you actively dodge a fucking bullet.
No, you're right- they should continue relying on the coral reefs to continue stocking their shore against a rising sea.
Though those aren't doing so well either, I'm sure you'll use their next bullet dodge as proof of it all being a hoax, too.
Re: (Score:2)
... and the next sentence is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is exactly what we look at. Predictions based on probability.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know, most of the giants of science were also deists? Can't have ANY science then, can you?
...what?
Re: (Score:2)
No, he wasn't. Don't trust the biased commentary that says he was, CHECK what he actually said. Hansen's paper [nasa.gov] is available. See the graph on the 4th page of his PDF (page 960 of the journal). By the year 2000, there should have been around 0.6 deg C of warming; we had about 0.2 deg C of warming [woodfortrees.org]. That's an error of 200%.
You cannot refute the 'accuracy' of that type of claim if you simply read the commentary; if you look at the actual claim and its results, it's plain to see it's a bunk model.
Of course,
Re: (Score:2)
The last 40 years have been very kind to models
That's [readcube.com] not [nature.com] true [washington.edu] at [nature.com] all [dailycaller.com].
There, I linked to four papers showing that climate models over-estimated warming. Are you going to change your opinion to match it, or are you going to be a science denier?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, the IPCC explicitly states that long term prediction of future climate is not possible. But you know otherwise, don't you? That's the beauty of religion - facts don't matter, faith can never be disproven.
Indeed. They pretty much say that it can turn out to be much, much worse and with very little warning. That is what "chaotic" behavior does. They do not say "this may turn out to not be a problem at all". Basically, we may trigger a threshold and things go to hell within a decade. The problem is we do not know where the thresholds are. The current predictions that predict something between a global catastrophe with gigadeath and human extinction do _not_ include such triggers and hence are unduly optimistic
Re: (Score:2)
Climate is not weather. Also, weather forecasts are pretty damn accurate these days. People who complain about the forecast being incorrect when it fails to rain with a forecast of 70% chance of rain just don't understand statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
People who complain about the forecast being incorrect when it fails to rain with a forecast of 70% chance of rain just don't understand statistics.
Seems to me, that if it only rains 50% of the time they they say 70% chance of rain... then it is you that doesnt understand statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me, that if it only rains 50% of the time they they say 70% chance of rain... then it is you that doesnt understand statistics.
Ah yes, the gambler's fallacy.
I imagine your logic is equally broken in most facets of your reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. This is as much "opinion" as anti-vaxxer or flat-earther "theory" is scientific fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Godwin again (Score:2)
typical nazi speaking
My brother in law is a friend of Mike Godwin [wikipedia.org] and apparently they once talked about the eponymous "law" back in the Usenet days. Mike is quoted as having said he was a bit embarrassed to be permanently linked the invocation of "Nazis", but I think somehow he should have gotten some kind of trademark on it so he could extract a BTC every time his prediction is proven, all you ACs should be thanking him for making the internet safe for your modern stupidity.
Re:Typical of... (Score:5, Insightful)
Literally saying you can't trust those models.
They're saying nothing of the kind. And why would they? [carbonbrief.org]
models that say we're going to die unless we forsake all capitalism, give up everything we have, and become a socialist, vegan collective trying to survive without petroleum
Ah, the redneck persecution complex endemic in the US. He who wants to looks for ways, he who doesn't looks for excuses. Fortunately for you, the rest of the world looks for ways.
Re: (Score:2)
the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible
Explain how that implies you can take the output of the models to the bank, and thus need to change the entire modern world accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Typical of... (Score:5, Informative)
What they are saying, is: If you're betting on the Earth not getting fucking wrecked, then you're going to lose. If you're betting on the Earth getting fucked, you're going to win. If you're betting on how fucked and how quick, well that's impossible to know... But place your bets.
That's more than enough to take to the bank. In fact, that's basically what banks do when offering loans.
You've really got to try harder.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you omitted the next line where they said the models are to be view as probabilistic, which is the best that anyone can really hope for with any gamble.
Great! So what are those error windows? What is the probability? And since we see the data is typically - if it's inside the probability windows at all - at the very bottom temperature range, why do we assume the mean values of the models? Is saying "we're going to have 0.5 to 4.5 deg C warming!" not as effective as "we're going to have 4.5 deg C of warming!" and thus the desire to use AGW as a cudgel becomes the driving factor for eliminating the window?
If your defense is "it's a probability!" then it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Regarding why isn't it said as X vs Y.. well, I'm pretty sure you're just incorrect there.
I've seen nothing but an evolving range as more models are eliminated and tuned as the threshold for reasonable doubt moves.
All models of everything work this way. They start out simple and get more convoluted until they're highly predictive.
Modeling is a science, a very evolved one, and
Re: (Score:3)
You're trying to equate incomplete, but *highly* accurate climate trend modeling with spaghetti-at-the-wall argumentation.
You and your ilk sit there and construct strawmen until the person you're arguing with is so confused they don't know wtf you're arguing about, or they get fed up with your ignorance.
You also seem fond of re-framing statements from places your opponent would consider author
Re: (Score:2)
They say:
In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the systems future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.
and:
The evaluation of many types of extreme events is made difficult because of issues of scale. Damaging extreme events are often at small temporal and spatial scales. Intense, short-duration events are not well-represented (or not represented at all) in model-simulated climates. In addition, there is often a basic mismatch between the scales resolved in models and those of the validating data. A promising approach is to use multi-fractal models of rainfall events in that they naturally generate extreme events. Reanalysis has also helped in this regard, but reanalysis per se is not the sole answer because the models used for reanalysis rely on sub-grid scale parametrizations almost as heavily as climate models do.
Re:Typical of... (Score:5, Insightful)
And the right never does that shit?
The right does do it. More than the left.
But that still doesn't make it okay for the left to do it.
Biden is leading in the polls because swing voters see him as a responsible adult.
If Democrats start acting like petulant Republicans, they will lose many of those voters.
Re: (Score:3)
And the right never does that shit?
The right does do it. More than the left.
Thank you for confirming the actual problem; Citizens keeping score to the point of turning politics into the civil war it has now become.
But that still doesn't make it okay for the left to do it.
Correct. But you're missing the point there, scorekeeper. The People shouldn't accept anyone doing it. Instead, we choose sides.
Biden is leading in the polls because swing voters see him as a responsible adult.
Dementia Joe is the responsible adult? America deserves what it gets when we label that corrupt idiocy as our exalted savior.
If Democrats start acting like petulant Republicans, they will lose many of those voters.
The Red gang attacks the Blue gang, and citizens cheer that shit on as their country burns. There's a lot more to los
Re: (Score:2)
Joe is the responsible adult? America deserves what it gets when we label that corrupt idiocy as our exalted savior.
Compared to the Red Gang's chosen one? My son at 12 was more responsible than that asshole.
Re: (Score:3)
Joe is the responsible adult? America deserves what it gets when we label that corrupt idiocy as our exalted savior.
Compared to the Red Gang's chosen one? My son at 12 was more responsible than that asshole.
And the Blue Gang sure as shit matched the insanity ante with Dementia Joe and the unnamed black female VP that will eventually be running the country.
Trump was the end result of 8 years of democratic rule. You can stop pretending we'll be in a better place no matter what gang is in charge, which is my entire point. Neither candidate is a good one. The pathetic part is The People would rather pick sides and sling shit than find someone who is actually mature, responsible, and mentally capable.
Enjoy the f
Re: (Score:2)
seems like pot kettle black with that analysis.
Re: (Score:2)
Nahh, the dumb rightist (oh so right and oh so wrong) shite is just so boringly lame, on slashdot, no one could be bothered with it. As sea levels rise, we will juts point and laugh, I don't own any underwater front and I am old, so not so much my problem.
Back to Facebook, what a crock of shite that private for profit corporations that pay lobbyists are going to be the arbiters of political truth, what a fucking joke. The truth, is what ever profits them most, regardless of burning the planet to the ground.
Re: Typical of... (Score:2)
Posting anonymously was a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Facts are things that can be proven to be what they are.
You are confusing science with mathematics. That's not how science works
The history of science is full of experiments that can validate an untrue hypothesis if you make the mistake of viewing it in such terms. That's why, at one point, phlogiston seemed to be the best explanation for air. When you think that an experiment "proves" something rather than failing to disprove something then you've got everything all backwards. Confirming a hypothesis is not the same as proving it.
Your reductive analysis of "opi
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am not confusing anything.
Does a baseball next to a broken window prove that the window was broken by the ball? No, it is only evidence that "suggests" that this may be the case. The window could have been broken by something else and it is is only coincidence that the ball happened to be present by the time the broken window was noticed.
True, there are problems with reductive analysis on things, but I am not talking about this specifically.
We have two problems here specifically. Is mankind is "dir
Re: (Score:3)
Complete bullshit. You have no clue how Science works. Climate science is solid. The predictions come with error-bars and these are pretty accurate from what we see from models from the 1980s with current measurement data. And by now even the best-case scenarios look exceptionally bad. And these are unlikely to happen. Much more likely we will get something in the average case area.
The level of "proof" you want is actually seeing the catastrophe before you believe it is possible. That is exceptionally stupi
Re: (Score:2)
Facts are things that can be proven to be what they are.
You are confusing science with mathematics. That's not how science works
While true, that is not what he is trying to do. He is simply trying to spread FUD. The idea that he may contribute to the demise of human civilization apparently has never entered his mind. The idea that denying facts does not change reality seems alien to him too. Just like all those morons that still claim COVID-19 does not exist or is merely a "mild flu". If anything, the current pandemic has made it absolutely clear that the level of insight into reality that average people have is very often abysmally
Re: (Score:2)
What I really do not get is why people like you deny the results from climate science (yes, it is "science"). Do you somehow believe denying scientific facts will change reality?
Also, it is true there are unknown factors. That means we may get of lightly or things may turn out far worse. Are you simply gambling with the future of human civilization, hoping it will be the former?
Re: (Score:2)
What do you want in the way of proof? What would you accept? Climate science is making a prediction about the future on one planet. There are clear limitations here; we cannot do controlled, double blind experiments. But if this is to be our standard between fact and opinion, then we have an heavily impoverished discourse.
Climate change, the role of mankind in it is fact because we have now have enormous quantities of evidence showing it is occurring, we have evidence showing the impact that it is having, w
Re: (Score:2)
political BS to think that wealth redistribution is a solution.
Nice strawman you got there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry but, but no.
THIS DOES NOT REALLY MATTER.
It is the only thing we can control and refusing to make the attempt is short-sighted and stupid.
And the last line is the only portion of this post that is opinion. The rest is scientifically proven fact.
Lets stipulate that re-forestation and other re-naturalization of vegetation and animal habitat is a net-good for all kinds of reasons beyond climate, in that case you can stop arguing. But for arguments sake...
I think the rub here is, what exactly do we "control" - we may have the ability to affect the concentration of CO2, Methane, etc., but do we have positive control? Would crushing every single non-electric automobile and truck on the face of this planet serve to permanently change the rate of CO2 emi
Re: (Score:2)
The IPCC reports suggest that if we somehow reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels that this will be sufficient.
Thats not what the reports prior to 1990 said. The reports said it was certain doom at emission levels that were lower than the 1990 levels.
First, whether or not we have a _significant_ impact on climate is not "settled science."
Second, whether or not the optimal temperature for this planet and humanity is higher or lower than it is currently is also not "settled science."
Third, CO2 emissions have saved literally billions of lives in the past 100 years by greatly reducing child mortality rates through
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately there is no actual "science" here in the historical Newtonian/Royal Society sphere because there is no possible way to run an experiment that actually tests these hypotheses, which means all of the climate "science" is really just opinion gussied up with computer models and educated guesses based on chemistry, physics, and empirical data trends.
In on some cases, for practical or ethical reasons there is no way you can test a hypothesis with a controlled experiment. But then you can test a a hypothesis by making predictions about things that you should see in nature if the hypothesis is correct, and follow up by collecting data try to verify the hypothesis.
A hypothesis could be that the Greenland ice will melt due to global warming. Then you observe Greenland's ice and analyze and draw conclusions. There are thousands of scientific papers that h
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to punch you in the face the next time you criticize a religion, because thats the only thing that will stop you green-drooling maniacs.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference? Depends on perspective.
You are correct that both require you to have "faith" in something you cannot prove.
So if it was wrong for the church back then to demand that people believe in a god they could not prove to exist... why is it suddenly okay now for a bunch of pseudo-scientists to demand it?
Forcing people to accept something when you cannot prove it is wrong no matter which form it takes or who does it. The only thing I am witnessing is the pendulum swinging in the opposite direction
Re:Climate Science IS OPINION (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, good heavens. "Natural Selection" was always part of "evolution" -- that's why "natural selection" is in the title of "Origin of the Species". Natural selection was being put forward as the mechanism for evolution. That was in the 1865, IIRC. Nowadays, there an enormous amount of evidence and a deeper mechanistic understanding supporting this.
"Climate change" was changed from "global warming" for two reasons. First, too many people said "well, I'd like it to be a bit warmer", and second because climate change is more descriptive. Increasingly severe weather events, flooding, hurricane are part of climate change as well as summers getting a bit warmer.
Re: (Score:2)
Completely wrong. The _prediction_ is a fact. The probability it will turn out accurate and the error bars on that are facts. The actual future behavior is a fact as well, just an unknown one.
That said, a prediction that you will get seriously hurt if you jump in front of a fast-moving car is pretty much relevant to what you should decide if you have the option to so so. It is just a prediction, it may turn out to be wrong (far more likely than the upcoming climate catastrophe in fact, people have gotten ou
Re: (Score:2)
You've lost all credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
^^ world ending
You've lost all credibility.
Nope. He has looked at the actual scientific data. If we hit a threshold, 4C may be far too optimistic. And then the human race ceases to exist. Civilization is more fragile and stops earlier.
Re: (Score:3)
And that is the most evil and distorted view of Science I have read in quite a while. It is completely untrue. A fact is an interpretation or theory supported by evidence and including an evidence-based discussion what may make it accurate and what may do the opposite. An opinion is not or only partially supported by evidence. The two are fundamentally different.