…and this is a 
After the computer break-in that revealed so-called 'damaging' emails in the East Anglia Climate Research Group, after all the media hysterics and errors and misrepresentations, now at last some newspapers are coming out and admitting that they screwed up. Any idiot could just look at the released emails and see that they didn't call the substance of the data into question, but the media took the profitable way out and fanned the flames of denialism.
It's rather like the Andrew Wakefield story. Take a very weak story, puff it up a bit to appeal to fringe kooks, and before you know it, you may be selling newspapers, but you're actually hurting people.
Environment
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 25, 2010 6:09 PM
But not news people (at least not for a while).
So what's your point?
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 25, 2010 6:12 PM
I remember one of the first things I learned in freshman sociology (in high school), was the phrase "yellow journalism", and how people had learned why it was a bad thing.
Apparently, either the vast majority of journalists never got that lesson, considering AFAICT, the media is about as bad now as any historic period I can remember, and it's not even being driven by the state!
Posted by: BrianX
|
June 25, 2010 6:13 PM
I was over on Groklaw earlier today and PJ had posted an article a couple of days ago from a ZDNet blogger using the pseudonym "Paul Murphy". This was a guy who had predicted that SCO would prevail in the jury trial against Novell over Unix copyrights. SCO, of course, was curbstomped, and the only thing anyone's left wondering is when SCO is going to file for Chapter 7.
Anyway, "Murphy" was claiming that a victory in the trial was a bad thing for the Linux community for... some reason... something about someone like Microsoft possibly buying Novell mumble mumble underpants mumble mumble because IBM *had* to have stolen Unix code for Linux/390 mumble something and PROFIT. I took a look through some of the guy's previous blog entries, and lo and behold he is a shameless corporate whore, and on top of that a global warming denier.
Why am I not surprised?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 25, 2010 6:18 PM
Well, how long did you expect them to last against the Black Helicopters of the NWO's Liberal Elite?
(There. You can take 'er easy tonight, Al B. Quirky; I fulfilled your quota of moron for this thread.)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 25, 2010 6:25 PM
Cue ABQuackers in three...two...one...
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
June 25, 2010 6:28 PM
Meanwhile China and India aren't going along anyway, so we're all doomed. Right? :lmao:
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 25, 2010 6:30 PM
Meanwhile China and India aren't going along anyway, so we're all doomed. Right?
if you believe that, I surely hope you're spending what little time you have left enjoying life.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 25, 2010 6:32 PM
No need for him. I took care of it.
Due to my religious upbringing, I can speak and write fluent Lobotomy.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
June 25, 2010 6:34 PM
I found the whole 'climategate' incident to be one more sad indictment on our media culture and a disturbing measure of just how widespread global warming denialism is.
On the basis of the skimpiest evidence... no, that's wrong. On the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever we found ourselves inundated the world over with screaming headlines proclaiming a Grand Climate Change Conspiracy. Inevitably the denialists jumped on the bandwagon to claim utter vindication for their unevidenced assertions of scientific skullduggery.
Fact checking was apparently beyond either the professional capacity or the level of journalistic integrity of the reporters in question.*
Who would have thought that such a disingenuous feeding frenzy would be thrown up by a simple throw-away turn of phrase? Still, I suppose that once that phrase has been wantonly taken out of context and then presented to the more gullible elements of the public pre-packaged with the idea that climatology as a scientific discipline is more political gambit then scientific endeavour, then an opportunity to sell papers presents itself.
Once again, the bottom line and circulation figures trump any consideration of something so banal and insignificant as, oh I don't know, the actual truth.
Reporting of science stories hit a new low in this debacle, and here we finally have an acknowledgement of fault on behalf of the Newspapers. It is only several months late and has been smuggled out during what I am reliably informed is some kind of sporting tournament of some popularity, thereby insuring that the story will receive little coverage.
I should not be surprised. I doubt anyone seriously expected an honest and open admission of error from these people.
*The denialists, of course, never concerned theselves with actual evidence in the first place. They were altogether too busy concocting their vision of the grand, illuminati-esque scientific conspiracy that they know must be behind the whole anthropogenic climate change business (Albino monks optional)...
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 25, 2010 6:38 PM
Agnes, 107, has no secrets to longevity
What a great, non-sensational headline. You might think for once, the media would not feel compelled to force irrational theories on longevity into an article on a centenarian.
...of course, then they blow it by feeling obligated to report the families' opinions on the matter:
Family members had their own theories, including how she has eaten salty porridge every day and never taken medication.
*sigh*
well, at least the headline's an improvement.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 25, 2010 6:38 PM
Yes you did. My bad. :(Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 25, 2010 6:52 PM
Unfortunately, retractions seldom change the impact of the original story. The AGW denialists will still be pointing at Climegate and the emails as proof the climatologists were lying all along.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
June 25, 2010 6:54 PM
Really? You don't say?
We really need to teach critical thinking in basic journalism school or maybe journalism. I hear journalism is nice and I suspect I would enjoy reading it.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
June 25, 2010 6:55 PM
Is anybody else's irony meter threatening to overheat as this story comes from Newsweek?
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
June 25, 2010 7:12 PM
Perhaps the death of "climategate" (I hate that formulation) is prematurely reported.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893
|
June 25, 2010 7:13 PM
Oh, come on, when's the last time Fox admitted that it made a mistake? That's pretty much hoping beyond all hope right there.
MikeM
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 25, 2010 7:14 PM
The AGW denialists will still be pointing at Climegate and the emails as proof the climatologists were lying all along.
of course.
still, seeing retractions published at least gives one concrete ammunition to prove these denialists are lying their asses off.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
June 25, 2010 7:20 PM
Pierce @14
They have a history of apologizing for their misleading reporting long after the damage they have done has become widely accepted as true.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 25, 2010 7:24 PM
Maybe it's time that citations become necessary for any newspaper or magazine article. Bullshit is being flung around like a gigantic 'make me brown!' party and everyone is so polarized on issues that there are not enough people standing up and yelling 'SHENANIGANS!'
That's why I like the science journals. Heck, even the letters section and the responses have a nice citations section. Maybe journalists need to take a minimum one year of science education so they can learn what real 'truthiness' and its reporting is all about.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 25, 2010 7:33 PM
And speaking of making people brown, I would like to shit all over the scumbags who leaked the East Anglia email hacks a week before the Copenhagen summit. Politicizing a potential global ecological disaster, even if still in a state of remote possibility (but the science says it's much worse), has got to be one of the most cynical, self-centered, idiotic and suicidally moronic things I have ever seen in my life. What effect this may have had on public pressure on their leaders attending the summit is probably something not easily quantifiable, but you can tell by the results that assholes and morons are still steering the ship. Considering this shit is usually driven by conservative church goers it makes sense. They're all sure that the 2000 foot Jebus will come with a giant vacuum cleaner and suck the suckiness out of the air. Meanwhile, anyone that has actually bothered to run a function in their cranium during the last decade will be utterly fuct while these grinning bastards await dead space.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
June 25, 2010 7:35 PM
Cerberus @ # 18: [Newsweek has] a history of apologizing for their misleading reporting long after the damage they have done has become widely accepted as true.
Exactly my poor irony meter's point, when I exposed it to the "...newspapers-retract-climategate-claims-but-damage-still-done" headline in the link (which I haven't clicked, but would bet tonight's dinner says nothing about their earlier "Glaciers! Run for your lives! Glaciers are coming!!!" cover stories).
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
June 25, 2010 7:36 PM
Chris Mooney, over on his blog, never refers to this event as "climategate" but rather by the much better moniker Swifthack. I don't know if he coined that term (kudos to him if he did, it's brilliant), or just liked it so much that he started using it (which would make him like me), but I think everyone should use Swifthack rather than the FAUXNews propaganda term.
Posted by: tuckerch
|
June 25, 2010 7:36 PM
Libtard di tutti libtard, Eric S. Raymond shares a mailing list I'm on.
When the whole "Climategate" thing erupted, he was absolutely insufferable. Called the "trick to hide the decline" comment a "siege cannon with a smoking barrel".
He also goes on about a worldwide socialist conspiracy of climate and other scientists, and claims that we're all infected with a soviet "memetic weapon" that makes us blind to the evil soviet conspiracy that STILL exists.
Eric's siege cannon is now little more than a superannuated pop gun, that has lost its cork, the string is frayed and the wood is infested with dry rot and termites.
Posted by: raven
|
June 25, 2010 7:39 PM
Cue the AGW denialists in 10 9 8....
Global warming is interesting but low on my list of things to worry about. Not that it isn't happening, the first time I saw a graph of CO2 rising in the 80's, it looked inevitable.
Just for quibbles:
1. Can we really stop the CO2 rising? Very doubtful, and most climate scientists seem to be increasingly pessimistic on that point. Our whole civilization runs on fossil fuels. The world has never run a planetary scale geoengineering project on a planned basis.
2. Will we stop it? Almost certainly not. See point 1. My readings of the climatologist's literature which isn't much but far above zero indicates that most climatologists don't think it will happen either.
So what will happen? We will adjust. It won't be trivial either but unlikely to be species ending or even civilization ending. Some say the conflict in Sudan is the first global warming war, with farmers migrating south and running into pastoralists as Northern Africa dries up. And one Eskimo village in the arctic has already had to be moved because of sea ice disappearance mediated erosion.
FWIW, I do support any efforts to mitigate the rise. Just because we can't do everything is no reason to throw our hands up in the air and do nothing.
Posted by: BrianX
|
June 25, 2010 8:14 PM
Eric Raymond is a lunatic. I'd always gotten some sense of him as a poser but his Linux advocacy largely overrode that for years. It was when I found out later about his homophobia, racism, HIV denial, and general assholeness that I realized I had been right - the man claims to be a rationalist but doesn't even know the difference between progamming and science.
Posted by: Birger Johansson
|
June 25, 2010 8:19 PM
Regarding bogus accusations and witch-hunts, altough ACORN has been cleared of suspicions, the White House and its minions continue to do the work of the Republicans:
"Obama's Attorney General continues to vigorously prosecute Acorn? Will Van Jones be Next?" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-atlas/why-does-obamas-attorney_b_625057.html
Thank Cthulhu I do not live in America! We have venal politicians at home, but nothing like this.
Posted by: Robert H
|
June 25, 2010 8:25 PM
There's a worldwide socialist conspiracy? Where can I sign up?
Posted by: SteveF
|
June 25, 2010 8:29 PM
PZ and the Newsweek blog seem to have things muddled somewhat. They say that papers are retracting the "Climategate" stuff. But they aren't in this instance. Climategate concerned the UEA emails. The retractions concern the largely made up/overblown controversy surrounding mistakes in the last IPCC report. This followed Climategate, in the generally frenzied lets attack climate science atmosphere that was particularly prevalent at that time, however the two things are distinct. The climategate emails that PZ refers to have nothing to do with, for example, the IPCC-Amazon crap that The Times was pushing.
Posted by: Meathead
|
June 25, 2010 8:34 PM
@25: I always wondered how Torvalds put up with Raymond since Linus himself seemed a level headed and decent guy.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 25, 2010 8:39 PM
No amount of evidence is enough to convince a denialist that AGW is real, but no evidence is required at all to convince them there's a conspiracy. Funny that.
(Of course, by "funny" I mean very depressing and frustrating)
Posted by: Robert H
|
June 25, 2010 8:46 PM
Actually, there is a threshold at which time they will no longer be able to deny AGW, at which time they will work out a way to blame it all on the IPCC and the dirty fucking hippies.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 25, 2010 9:18 PM
...they will work out a way to blame it all on the IPCC and the dirty fucking
hippiesliberals.Fixed.
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
June 25, 2010 9:42 PM
I've read quite a few of his bizarre rants and involvement in flame-wars, which make it look a lot like The Cathedral and the Bazaar was a black swan for him. Never met the guy myself, but I know a couple of people who have, and “ESR is a scary loon” is too common a report to dismiss.
Posted by: raven
|
June 25, 2010 9:50 PM
to blame it all on the IPCC and the
dirty fucking hippiesliberals.gays and atheists.Your hate and scapegoat list is a decade out of date. Download a current version from Hate Central.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
June 25, 2010 9:52 PM
Raven@24
Have you seen this?
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552.abstract
In effect it says that we could render large portions of the planet uninhabatable. I find that a concern especially with human population likely to reach 9-10 billion sometime around mid-century. That is really the concern about climate change--it makes all the other problems we face worse. And what that means is that to date, we can't bound the risk posed by climate change. If it does indeed cause a collapse of food production--and this is quite possible--I do not think it is reasonable to expect an orderly reduction of population. We could actually see climate change cause the destruction of human civilization.
And as to fossil fuels, yes we are dependent on them. No that is not an inherent part of the human condition. We would have to develop a new energy infrastructure anyway due to the finite supply of petroleum--all this does is push us in the direction of sustainability and away from coal, tar sands and oil shale.
I think that technically, avoiding catastropic climate change is quite feasible. I just think humans are too stupid to actually do it.
Posted by: Utakata
|
June 25, 2010 9:54 PM
PZ Myers wrote inpart:
"Take a very weak story, puff it up a bit to appeal to fringe kooks, and before you know it, you may be selling newspapers, but you're actually hurting people."
...to also point out, to which I find profoundly disturbing, that some of those "fringe kooks" claim themselves to be actual skeptics. /sigh
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 25, 2010 10:30 PM
This article by Gwynne Dyer is already two years old, but that's just two years where things have likely gotten worse. If the science was scary at the end of 1988 and the world's military gearing up for conflict, obviously the skeptics are unaware of any sort of reality whatsoever, but that doesn't surprise me in the least.
Flip through the articles section of GwynneDyer.com (I think there's a glitch where you have to insert 2010 into the article year on the URL, but they are there). His stuff is well researched and he is definitely someone who uses the ol' casaba.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
June 25, 2010 10:36 PM
Must I make a comment, or can I just report in for my unfair share of abuse?
Posted by: raven
|
June 25, 2010 10:41 PM
A ray in dilbert space #35
Just read the abstract, will read the paper later.
If that occurs, it will be centuries from now most likely. Even the most pessimistic forecasts project a few degrees C by the end of the century. And the uncertainty in projecting way out are immense, almost to the point of chaos. There are a lot of feedback cycles that we don't really understand yet and won't until we see them in action.
Which is enough to markedly change the earth, ice cap melting, sea level rises and so on.
My best guess is we won't do anything until it becomes unavoidable. If the direst projections are correct, at some point slow motion and not so slow climate disasters will become common. Humans have built in inertia and an inability to plan too far ahead. One lifetime is about our maximum and many people are lucky to plan ahead a week.
I used to associate with some deep time ecology scientists. They take their projections out millennia. Most of them thought a human dieback was inevitable and the big arguments were over which century and why. After a while it just got depressing.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 25, 2010 10:47 PM
Your reputation precedes you. Don't bother to comment, we'll abuse you without your presence.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 25, 2010 10:49 PM
Al B. Quirky #38
You feel you've been shorted on abuse? Just speak up, dumbshit, and we'll be happy to give you more abuse until you're satisfied.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
June 25, 2010 10:51 PM
As Birger Johansson mentioned, ACORN was found of no wrong-doing by the Government Accountability Office.
It's a shame the media doesn't focus more on going after real culrprits with real power. I guess their corporate overlords and government officials wouldn't like that. Much easier to go after people who can barely defend themselves.
The ACORN case and "climategate" just shows what we all knew: that when given a choice between truth or profit the media will choose profit.
Posted by: John Morales
|
June 25, 2010 10:53 PM
ABQ@38l:
Yes.
--
PS I take it you don't dispute the fact that “Climategate” was a substanceless beat-up.
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
June 25, 2010 10:55 PM
Preemptive whining is more likely to attract contempt than support.
Posted by: James F
|
June 25, 2010 11:04 PM
Somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 to 40 percent of the country thinks that not just the Earth, but the entire universe is 6,000 years old. Alas, nothing surprises me.
Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach
|
June 25, 2010 11:05 PM
Only in the real world. In the world inhabited by the loons (and I don't mean those nice birds so beloved of those of us living in Soviet Canuckistan) all it does is prove -prove!- the reach of the liberalgaysocialist conspiracy.Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
June 25, 2010 11:33 PM
so Al, are you saying it's more your style to play the victim (in lieu of facts) rather than just admit that you might be wrong about something you have absolutely no expertise in?
Posted by: BrianX
|
June 25, 2010 11:36 PM
Emmet @33:
I refuse to use his TLA. A TLA nickname is something reserved for someone of significant accomplishment in my book (dmr, for example, or rms, or ken, or gls...) and I don't believe Raymond deserves it -- if he ever did, he forfeited it after 9/11. (And considering the complaints of the results of his stewardship of fetchmail and his blatant quote-mining of the CRU code listings, I'm not entirely sure he ever did, Jargon File aside.)
Posted by: BrianX
|
June 25, 2010 11:41 PM
(Incidentally, I don't have a cite for it, but when Senator Rick "Shitfoam" Santorum was trying to muzzle the National Weather Service, he actually came out in favor of the Santorum measure in a web discussion on a site other than his. Never mind that Accuweather and the Weather Channel have illogical and unenforceable TOS policies, or that Accuweather gives 15-day predictions that any weather aficionado can tell you are more or less useless after the first week, or that the NWS is a resource used by millions of people across the country, or that it was the only government agency that did its fucking job during Katrina. Gotta protect the corporatocracy.
Posted by: Marella
|
June 26, 2010 12:15 AM
I suppose we'll all have to move to Canada, it seems to be the place most likely to benefit from AGW to me and it's largly uninhabited. Certainly it's barely fit for human habitation now. Pity about the polar bears though.
I expect Australians will have to move to Tasmania. Actually Canada would be preferable but they may not be taking refugees.
Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach
|
June 26, 2010 12:33 AM
It's not at all certain that you could characterise anywhere as 'benefitting' from any effects of climate change. The chances of the result of all the chaotic changes being simply "it gets nice and warm in the Yukon" are a bit slim. More violent weather, more extremes, more confusing - all seem likely to me. And even if it did happen that the net result were that, say, the southern US became even less bearable than it already is and northern Canada became a balmy pleasant place like southern France, then all that would happen is that Canada would be invaded - probably literally - by millions of refugees with too many guns and bad attitude. I wouldn't consider that to be a net benefit, all in all.Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
June 26, 2010 12:52 AM
But I think it is a bit too late for newspapers to admit that they screwed it. The damage has already been done.
Posted by: skeptifem
|
June 26, 2010 2:28 AM
The news papers aren't there to sell papers or to inform anyone in any real sense. WE are the product for the media, the advertisers are the customers. The media all try to engineer progressively more ignorant consumers so that they can make us buy anything, and the advertisers pay to have access to all of us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
The people who own the media know whats good for em, and making it seem like resources won't ever run out and that scientists are dishonest or stupid is good for a shit ton of industries. This story caught on for a reason.
Posted by: Pyre
|
June 26, 2010 3:21 AM
Here's a shorter URL for the article linked at thread start:
http://tinyurl.com/climategate-retracted
Easier to pass around in emails and .sigs....
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 26, 2010 3:23 AM
I don't think there's a real problem if the planet's climate starts turning Venus-wise. We just round up all the shitskulls that signed on to the Swifthack (thanks Science Pundit) bandwagon and feed them to the refugees lining up at the border for grub. 'Soylent Green is AGW deniers...AGW DENIERS!!!'
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
June 26, 2010 4:09 AM
Warning! Warning! Free-thinking skeptical DENIALIST DOG detected in sector #24. Exterminate! Exterminate!
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
June 26, 2010 4:18 AM
Aw boo boo baby wants his baba.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 26, 2010 4:20 AM
Quirky, until you can demonstrate you actually have a clue about climate change, can you please shut the fuck up? Your tedious drone is only surpassed by the ignorance that oozes from it.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 5:16 AM
oooh ooh, can I play crazy fucknut translator?
leseee...
Warning! Warning!
look at me! look at me! I'm not getting enough attention!
Free-thinking
empty headed.
skeptical
ignorant.
DENIALIST DOG
I use caps when trying to use sarcasm, so you all can easily tell.
detected in sector #24.
look! crazy like me!
Exterminate! Exterminate!
stop yelling at me, and yell at him for a while.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 5:21 AM
It won't be trivial either but unlikely to be species ending or even civilization ending.
if you mean humans as the only species you are considering, and civilization VERY loosely...
sure thing.
realistically, MANY species will be lost because of it, including a lot of direct food and agricultural use to us.
you pointed out that entire clans and villages have to be moved.
wherein do you think that civilizations would be unaffected, or frankly, even completely ended?
If my civilization's history is based on hunting seals on iceflows... and the iceflows simply disappear...
sure, I might be able to move inland, but i my "civilization" sure isn't going to be anything like what it was before. In effect, yes, many civilizations will indeed be destroyed.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 26, 2010 5:24 AM
Why do you think that civilizations would be unaffected, or frankly, even not completely ended?
fixed.
Posted by: Pyre
|
June 26, 2010 6:27 AM
Ichthyic: If my civilization's history is based on hunting seals on icefloes... and the icefloes simply disappear...
If my civilization's villages are built on permafrost, and the permafrost melts so that the villages sink into the mud....
If my civilization's home is on low-lying oceanic islands or shorelines, and the sea levels rise due to glacial melting....
If my civilization depends on water flowing from the mountains, and the water dries up because the ice in the mountains has vanished....
If my civilization depends on heat in the Gulf Stream flowing northeast from the Caribbean toward Scandinavia to keep my region from freezing, and the Gulf Stream stops because too much glacial fresh water has lowered its salinity too far....
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 26, 2010 6:52 AM
As long as the civilization with the topless hula girls and drinks with umbrellas in them survives, then the best of humanity is saved and all will be well. ...What do you mean 'they'll go first?' DAMNIT, THERE IS NO HOPE*!
*Despite the Obama campaign posters, which I originally had mistaken for a recycling campaign poster for HDPE: high-density polyethylene.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
June 26, 2010 9:43 AM
Raven,
While it is true that the most severe effects of climate change are over a century away, we are already feeling the effects in terms of expanded range for invasive weeds, tropical diseases, and worse impulsive rainfall events punctuating worsened drought.
The more immediate crisis is that these will continue to worsen, causing high-yield agriculture to collapse. Human population is already at unsustainable levels--hell we've been eating petroleum in the form of soybeans and corn for 5 decades! Sustainable levels are probably under 1 billion people.
So when you are delegated to tell 9 of 10 of your neighbors that they and their families must starve to death, how do you think they will receive you? My guess is that they will do whatever they have to to try and survive. That will further exacerbate environmental degradation.
In addition to this, there is the prospect of a gamechanger--such as massive outgassing of clathrates from the ocean or CH4 from melting permafrost. This is non-negligible and could cause warming akin to what was seen in the PETM--one of the largest mass extinctions seen on the planet.
Couple this with the fact that CO2's effects will persist for millennia, and the climate forecast does not look very good for our descendants.
Posted by: bisky
|
June 26, 2010 11:22 AM
Uh let's see. They describe how to use Michael Manns "trick" to "hide the decline". The trick being earlier described as picking and choosing data points to leave in and out, or pasting together parts of different charts. Hmm and then destroying the originals. The decline they refer to is the decline in global temperatures the last 8 years, that proved all of their computer models wrong. They describe this as a "travesty". They describe how to make a false consensus by excluding peer reviewed journals that don't agree. Many professors have been bullied and fired.They are worried about the Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago when it was warmer and vineyards grew in England, and try to make it disappear also. Just download them and read them for yourself people, starting with November 2009 and go back. Then you'll know anyone who does and writes an article like this is a NWO Wormtongue.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 26, 2010 11:43 AM
brisky, I'm impressed. You managed to get every other sentence 100% wrong, except maybe the 2nd to last one. For starters, the decline doesn't refer to temperature. It refers to the correlation between temperature and tree-ring proxies (which weren't necessary at that point anyway, since in the 60's they had those magical instruments called thermometers, thus making proxies superfluous), which declines because of the increased CO2 content in the atmosphere. Maybe it's you who should read the relevant scientific literature about this "trick" you seem to be so clueless about. It's all there, open to everyone who knows how to read scientific literature, no secret at all.
Posted by: raven
|
June 26, 2010 11:45 AM
That study on maximum temperatures for human life was projecting a 14 degree F rise in temperature several centuries away and was an admitted worst case scenario. It was interesting but not too relevant for today.
Sure, things could be desperate for our descendants. Those fossil fuels are running out, we are mining the soil and so on.
Note that I'm saying things are going downhill due to AGW, something easily seen on the news.
The points I made were:
1. Can we (in political and social terms) stop it?
2. Will we stop it?
So far, the answers are no and no.
Don't confuse what should be done in a rational world, what you think should be done, and WHAT WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN. These are 3 entirely different things. The point I was trying to make is WHAT WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN.
Last night I hit some deep time ecology and climatology sites for the first time in a long time. The consensus seems to be that we won't do anything for a long time.
It will take a series of climate disasters before humans wake up and deal with it. We humans aren't good at dealing with future threats before they happen.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
June 26, 2010 12:10 PM
brisky,
Maybe you should try getting your science from actual scientists rather than libertarian blogs.
First, the "decline" has nothing to do with measured temperatures. Rather, it is the divergence of a proxy for temperature (cetrain tree rings) in the last 60 years from actual measured temperatures. You get pretty much the same reconstruction whether you include these proxies or not. It has zero effect or relevance to current temperatures.
Decline in the last 8 years? Dude, what decline? The past 12 months (June 2009-June 2010) have been the warmest on record! Most of the months of the current calendar year have shattered, not just broken, records. Even denialist Roy Spencer has been forced to remark on this.
The rest of your diatribe is simply lies--whether you realize it or not. Now we will see whether your learning has a positive slope. Start with this--try to find 1 peer-reviewed paper that supports your position AND has been cited more than 10 times in the subsequent peer-reviewed literature.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
June 26, 2010 12:14 PM
Raven, Other than being able to say, "I told you so," I don't see the advantage of your position. I know of no way to predict the future, and so I tend not to prejudge the future. Yes, human folly gives us much reason to be concerned that this crisis will become our own answer to the Fermi Paradox. However, I know of nothing I can do except push for human potential to overcome human stupidity. You?
Posted by: raven
|
June 26, 2010 12:32 PM
What position? I'm making a prediction for the near future based on present activities and human behavior. It is worth doing and being able to say I told you so is pretty trivial. Only my cats would care. Hmmm, well they probably won't care very much.
Doesn't look like anyone has any idea how to stop the CO2 rise right now. The technology might be there but the political and social capital just isn't.
About all we can do is keep doing the science, keep documenting the effects, and wait for some blindingly obvious catastrophes. It will be much easier after a few cities are submerged, a few lethal heat waves, agricultural collapses. Not pleasant, not what I want, but the most realistic scenario.
We have to deal with the world we have, not the one we want to live in.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
June 26, 2010 3:44 PM
Raven,
By the time the evidence becomes sufficient to convince even libertarians, it will be too late to avoid catastrophe. And I do not think we are lightyears away from at least some action being taken. The thing is there are things we can do that buy time while we wait for political will to build and technological solutions to develop.
The "most realistic scenario" is the one we create for ourselves--either by taking action, buying time and looking for solutions or by continuing to live as a society of consumers, regardless of environmental cost.
This is not an unavoidable catastrophe like a meteor striking Earth. This is a catastrophe we are creating and can avoid.
It is also a test of whether science can serve as a counterbalance to the human tendency toward wishful thinking and force ourselves to be grounded in reality. It is right now the front lines of rationality against stupidity.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/xEQPPwZrk_NLnY3Og6Heh5tgDDb4w6szMTY-#96b14
|
June 26, 2010 11:57 PM
Question: What are the chances an infinitesimal (.04%) trace gas (CO2), essential to photosynthesis and therefore life on this planet, is responsible for runaway Global Warming?
Answer: Infinitesimal
The IPCC now agrees. See the IPCC Technical Report section entitled Global Warming Potential (GWP). And the GWP for CO2? Just 1, (one), unity, the lowest of all green house gases (GHG). What’s more, trace gases which include GHG constitute less than 1% of the atmosphere. Of that 1%, water vapor, the most powerful GHG, makes ups 40% of the total. Carbon dioxide is 1/10th of that amount, an insignificant .04%. If carbon dioxide levels were cut in half to 200PPM, all plant growth would stop according to agricultural scientists. It's no accident that commercial green house owner/operators invest heavily in CO2 generators to increase production, revenues and profits. Prof. Michael Mann's Bristle cone tree proxy data (Hockey stick) proves nothing has done more to GREEN (verb) the planet over the past few decades than moderate sun-driven warming (see solar inertial motion) together with elevated levels of CO2, regardless of the source. None of these facts have been reported in the national media. Why?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 27, 2010 12:21 AM
What are the chances an infinitesimal
what are the chances that an infinitesimal amount (0.2g) of cyanide will stop you from bleating?
why not try it and let us know?
oh, but before you do that, why not go over to one of the antivaxer sites and tell them how the infinitesimal amount of soluble mercury in any given vaccine preservative couldn't possibly be the source of ANY disease, let alone something like autism.
now run along and play.
there's a good lad.
Posted by: Katrina, radicales féministes athées
|
June 27, 2010 12:50 AM
Ichthyic is my hero.
Just sayin'.
~~~~~~~~~~
I would also like to add that the "too many comments" submission error is a pain in the ass.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 27, 2010 12:52 AM
Latest Skeptic magazine has a good article talking about the difference between a Climate "Skeptic" and climate deniers. Well worth reading.
Posted by: raven
|
June 27, 2010 1:03 AM
That is my best guess as to what will happen first. Read an article on ocean acidification tonight. Pretty scary. If the zooplankton can't make CaCO3 shells, the fisheries might collapse, not that many of them haven't already.
I haven't seen anything even in the pipelines but talk and vague plans that never go anywhere. We will just have to check back in 20 years and see what has happened.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 27, 2010 1:05 AM
Read an article on ocean acidification tonight. Pretty scary. If the zooplankton can't make CaCO3 shells, the fisheries might collapse, not that many of them haven't already.
it's indeed quite depressing.
bye-bye fishies. bye-bye coral.
*cry*
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
June 28, 2010 7:06 AM
..and poor submerged cities.
*sniff, blubber*
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 28, 2010 7:31 AM
ABQ, you are neither cogent nor funny, just pathetic. If you were wise, you would just give it up. But we both know you aren't wise under any definition.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
June 28, 2010 7:47 AM
Perfect response. :-)
That'll take longer. Greenland doesn't thaw overnight. It's also not a consequence of ocean acidification; you might want to learn to read for comprehension...
Posted by: Pyre
|
June 29, 2010 2:16 AM
CO2 is not the only gas of immediate interest.
Try Googling methane Gulf
... or for a particularly unpleasant topic, methane tsunami