How’s that ice cover looking in 2013?
IMO no one’s got a clue, the planet will be fine though.
Would people please learn to ignore the astroturfers, and actually discuss the issue at hand? We’ve got a global ecological crisis to try to somehow head off, and people are wasting time debunking arguments for the ten thousandth time that no one actually believes. The same thing happens on every blog or forum on which global climate change comes up for discussion: suddenly there are posters no one has seen before, and they’re reciting the same bullshit talking points. Please don’t be naive. They aren’t here for an open dialogue. People are getting paid to disrupt conversations. Don’t let them.
1 Like
Would people please learn to ignore the astroturfers …
Tried that for many years and the fuckers took over the narrative and influenced the public to stall on tackling climate change in the first place. It’s very possible to engage deniers and correct them while also working in other ways to counter global climate change at the same time, thank you very much.
The reality is when you allow them to spew their half-truths unchecked, we end up enabling them to influence society and dictate policy. We’ve been facing this threat by also engaging industry deniers as well and we’re slowly winning.
I wish we didn’t have to waste a second of time with these people, but that’s unfortunately the case. Studies have shown that the comments these wayward people leave all over the internet actually influences the public and I’ve seen this in action myself. They know it damn well and we’d be foolhardy to ignore it ourselves. They must be challenged anywhere they rear their ugly heads.
1 Like
You do well to post those links. What I’m getting at, though, is in most forums, that doesn’t happen, and there’s no real discussion between people who are looking for ways to stop climate change. Instead, the threads consist of inane recitations of talking points, familiar responses to those talking points – and then the same talking points, rephrased or from other posters. The net result is that there’s no actual discussion going on.
I’ve seen this a lot on Ars Technica, for instance, where they used to post interesting articles on new findings in climate science, but the discussion threads would never get to discussing those articles, because the threads were dominated by astroturfers and well-meaning responses to those astroturfers. At some point, there’s got to be some actual discussion.
2 Likes
Follow the money. Follow the systems of control. They want to blame you. http://youtu.be/l-RvUedfKpk
I’ve seen this a lot on Ars Technica, for instance, where they used to post interesting articles on new findings in climate science, but the discussion threads would never get to discussing those articles
Well, denier static got so bad that you probably know what Popular Science did:
I wish they dedicated themselves to more moderation, but they tucked tail and ran instead, IMO.
And, unfortunately, that’s the ultimate goal of an industry that wants to silence honest debate. Sadly, they’re winning in some cases because they have vast monetary resources and plenty of duped dunces who fall for fairly convincing libertarian “think tank” half-truths and lies. (Shit, even Mark F. from boingboing sometimes links to reason.com which is very puzzling considering what they’re about).
They’re also very successfully doing the same, horrible stuff against single payer health care in the USA even after their methods were whistle-blown out of the water by a top guy from CIGNA. But, far less Americans get exposed to that interview in my link than they get exposed to the constant drone of falsehoods against single payer for the USA (but I try anyway).
All we can do is continue to challenge them while taking our own actions IRL to thwart these people and their despicable actions. I agree it’s unfortunate because instead of debating half-truths and lies, the American public should be devoted to debating the best ways to combat these real problems and implementing solutions (however imperfect). But, in reality, we have to fight two battles, the real problems themselves and those that spread and promote ignorance to keep us from uniting to fight said problems.
Yes, they invade Ars Technica forums, they invade Reddit (en masse) and they slip through the cracks here at boingboing and try to push their lies here as well. But, they’re also counting on wearing us down and that’s not going to fucking happen either.
It may not seem like it at times, but we are slowly beating these bastards. That’s why they’re getting increasingly more vociferous. We’re wearing THEM down. Heh.
2 Likes
Follow the money. Follow the systems of control. They want to blame you. http://youtu.be/l-RvUedfKpk
Unfortunately, that’s an amazing pile of half-truths and lies. Compare point by point with what you can find here:
Also, I’m going to trust science that’s out in the open and not some company that does this at every turn:
Also, please note this very telling part of the “About Us” page from those that made that YouTube video: (emphasis mine)
ABOUT:I am not a scientist, I am classically trained in economics and law, but have worked professionally in the investment field, primarily in a due diligence capacity. Turns out this has had some good implications for what I am trying to do on YouTube and here on this website.
Some actual climate scientists that dedicate their lives to climate science and are open and exposed to true peer review are your better route for getting to the bottom of this climate change issue. You’re embracing non-science in the face of science and that’s a frustrating shame.
2 Likes
And of course all of those scientists make a living pushing human sourced climate change. And you are paying for all of that, whether you want to or not. No choice in the matter. As for your skeptical scientist, well, the history of science is littered with their ilk. Go back and read what the skeptics had to say about Einstein, Copernicus, et al.
And of course all of those scientists make a living pushing human sourced climate change.
No they don’t, they make a living studying climate science. You’re confusing climate science with climate change. If global warming was disproven next Wednesday, most all those climate scientists would go on studying climate science. That’s how science works.
On the other hand, if more Americans embrace the realities of climate change and do something about it, the fossil fuel industry would lose vast sums of money by being thwarted from milking their current infrastructure.
You’ve got it all backwards.
Go back and read what the skeptics had to say about Einstein, Copernicus, et al.
Einstein was an actual scientist. Copernicus was an actual scientist. I thought scientists were to be distrusted? You’re trying desperately to have it both ways and delving into distraction instead of valid points.
How about instead of focusing on distractions such as what skeptics said of Copernicus in the 1500’s, we focus on the reality in the world we live in today? One of which is a whopping 97% of the world’s climate scientists agreeing that there’s global warming and it’s most likely exacerbated by human activities.
You’ve obviously never met a group of real, live scientists in your life. Trying to get just a room-full of them to agree on something considering their egos and critical thinking skills is like herding cats. Much less 97% of the world’s climate scientists which would be a miracle. There isn’t enough money in this world to pay off even just a small fraction of those scientists to all lie and agree that global warming is real in unison like this. And, once again, if they’re all wrong about global warming, they’d continue doing climate science nonetheless. Being wrong about things is a part of the scientific process. They wouldn’t lose their jobs, they’d just begin studying why they were wrong and continue all the other massive issues they undertake in climate science that has nothing to do with global warming.
I know it can be difficult to pull away from a long-held belief. Long-held beliefs can become familiar like children to some people. But, I hope you let rational thought rule this day and at least consider how absurd it is to believe that this many scientists are colluding to deceive the entire planet while their research is mostly wide open and peer reviewed.
You bring forth closed, hidden entities spewed forth via industry that serves to benefit and profit from disinformation. Climate scientists bring you science that they get paid for whether climate change is real or a vast, colossal mistake made by the majority of the world’s scientists (as you may also be positing).
I don’t know if it’s because reality terrifies you and you don’t want to face it (which will only make it worse) or if it’s because of issues in your past where you’ve always been right about things while others were wrong and now you just can’t shake the fact that you’ve chosen the wrong path… but I hope you let reason prevail here instead of this confusing ball of distractions, half-truths and outright deceptions you embrace today.
6 Likes
[Credible Citation Needed]
A) Selection bias.
B) Even if it’s true, is not the same as agreeing that a warmer globe implies catastrophe.
In fact: the topmost 700 meters of ocean have warmed by 0.065C since the lowest measurement on record (1968).
Six hundredths of one degree.
I like how you people can keep saying “selection bias” long after it’s been exposed as a dishonest nonsense explanation, as if repeating it would suddenly make it true. Surely that establishes you as a credible party interested in an honest discussion. If a moderator is reading, I’m curious, are these posts appropriate for flagging yet?
The six-hundredths of a degree bit is new and cute. I assume you got the specific figure of 0.065 C from this conservative blog, or Judith Curry who quotes it; and it is about right in value, but the interpretation they’re giving it is disingenuously reversed.
They’re taking a very large change in energy amounting to a very small change in ocean temperature to pretend it doesn’t matter. But everyone has said the oceans are a buffer; a very small change in averaged ocean temperatures is concerning because it means a very large change in energy in the system. That energy is generated through atmospheric radiation absorption and even a portion of it will go with large changes in temperature at the surface, as we see in all the other charts.
I don’t think anyone capable of working out such values is stupid enough to make an honest mistake about their importance like that, so you are quoting someone who is trying to mislead you. Anyone who isn’t intending to be dishonest should then question how much to trust them in the future.
2 Likes
B) Even if it’s true
Even if it’s true, it’s not true. I get it.
1 Like
Heck, the oceans are 70% of the earth’s surface, and they mention a 700 meter thick layer of that. What kind of person tries to act like the amount of energy it would take to increase the average temperature of that volume of water through the relatively small surface interface is small, or that that amount of additional energy isn’t likely to have serious impact on the world’s weather?
2 Likes
@chenille the data come directly from Argo:
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
Life doesn’t care about the total energy in the system. If the ocean is ample to distribute that total over a tremendous mass and volume such that the effect at any given location is small, life will hardly notice. Hence the reason ocean temp figures so strongly in climate models, and why their overestimation of it led to embarrassingly bad predictions over the past 15 years.
@Cowicide Look: 99% of voters favor democracy over anarchy, and 99.9% of Creation Scientists believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve. Oh, and most water is wet.
Even if it’s true, it’s totally redundant and useless, because Selection Bias.
For the record: I don’t deny anthropogenic global warming.
If you read my post you’d notice I linked to that same Argo site, which gives a value of 0.06°C. You quoted the more precise value of 0.065 °C, which apparently comes from the blogs I mentioned and not your link. So now you are not just ignoring what you were answering - that total energy matters to surface temperatures - but seemingly trying to conceal your actual sources. Classy.
Edit: I’d also like to point out that same NOAA site mentions salinity changes suggesting a several percent change to the hydrological cycle, driven by those same surface temperatures. Yet somehow you only thought to consider the bulk oceanic temperature, even after we mentioned the surface is why the energy change matters?
1 Like
Right: you don’t care about the facts – the implications of which you obviously aren’t qualified to discuss; you want to know what popular dogma I must have subscribed to to dare to impose an inconvenient fact on this theological debate.
I don’t read climate blogs, or “climate skeptic” blogs. IAmA physicist by training and read physics blogs, one of which had an analysis of this data a few days ago, and originated that number.
Edit: it was this one (I’m not going to fish out the article – you’ll have to scroll)
Who’s talking about what life cares about? The system cares about the total energy of the system… that’s part of the definition of a system. Life doesn’t have to care about the energy in order to be impacted by the results of energy on a system.
Comparing either of those to the conclusions of scientists who study climate is False Equivalence, among other things.
2 Likes
The one I suggested you likely got your value from was the reference frame, which mostly talks about physics, but self-described as “from a conservative viewpoint” and has climate as one of its main topics. Its analysis is what I explained above as generally agreeing with NOAA on the value, but entirely dishonest in the way it pretends it’s too small to matter.
Is that not the one you are referring to? Because it sure seems like you have taken its version as a given, and ignored even the rest of the NOAA page you just pointed to as the source of the data, which is rather poor behavior from someone who claims to be interested in facts and to be qualified to discuss them. Is preferring honesty called theology now?
Edit: Since this was written, xgkick has cited his actual source. It is indeed the reference frame, and you don’t actually have to fish out the article, since I had already linked to it before he claimed his data was directly from NOAA and not climate skeptic blogs.
1 Like
Look: 99% of voters favor democracy over anarchy, and 99.9% of Creation Scientists believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve. Oh, and most water is wet.
Comparing climate scientists to creationists (who aren’t scientists, for one thing) is stunningly ludicrous, insulting to said real scientists and a novice mistake for someone like you who claims to be speaking from authority.
For the record: I don’t deny anthropogenic global warming.
Bully for you. But, I imagine you’re also a libertarian, climate change impact denier, amirite? Be honest.
IAmA physicist by training and read physics blogs
So, you’re not a climate scientist who is an expert in climate science. Not that it matters, right? Let’s leave climate science up to creationist “scientists” or whomever deems themselves an expert in climate science without them going through the actual rigors of being an actual climate scientist. Screw it.
If you’re so interested in climate science, why not become an actual climate scientist? Or is this just a hobby of yours that somehow qualifies you to be an expert who trumps seasoned climate scientists? Did other hobbyists who trump experts in their field peer review your hobby studies you haven’t presented?
Maybe it’s time you consulted with 97% of the world’s climate scientists? Ya know, experts in their field? Nevermind, that’s ludicrous… consensus of climate scientists on climate science means as little as creationism in your batty world.
the implications of which you obviously aren’t qualified to discuss;
The irony of you saying that to @chenille escapes you, doesn’t it? You’re the one who needn’t be a climate scientist to dismiss consensus of 97% of all climate scientists as trivial along with comparing them to creationists. What exactly are your qualifications again? You’ve read some blogs?
2 Likes
