Can we just have one canonical climate change topic and just refer everyone there? Man. The repetition is oppressive. (Not blaming anyone in particular, I’m just saying, we end up having the same discussions over and over in every one of these.)
1 Like
I know, it’s frustrating, and I’m sorry for my contribution to dragging these out. I generally like BoingBoing, and I hate to see these topics getting drenched in the same specious arguments about how everyone who has worked in the field must be a fool or villain, because some lie or other, again and again.
My not-quite-thought-out-hope was that for at least the usual suspects, things could be hashed out in detail once or twice, and then we could just link back to it, like here. It seems that is not going to help, though, if people will ignore what has been covered on the same topic thread.
I’d still like, though, to be able to look at climate-related posts by Rob, Cory, Maggie, etc. on their own terms, instead of leaving the stream of dishonesty unchallenged or giving up the hope of discussing new topics entirely because of it. You’re familiar with the mechanics of maintaining communities; is there no way moderation can help?
2 Likes
Luboš Motl is, I don’t know what you call it, a reverse weather vane for me. Wrong on climate, wrong on feminism, wrong on string theory’s prospects. Occasionally such people will write something you at first seem to agree with, which forces you to really re-examine that assumed belief without the defensiveness that straightforward opposition induces.
Actually I’m leaning toward just not allowing comments at all on climate change articles. It is up to @beschizza and @Felton et al though, not me.
I don’t really see a way forward on climate change articles if you’re going to “allow” both sides to have their say on the matter.
I guess you could have a FAQ style post that you refer everyone to, “if you’re going to say climate change is invalid, here are some links to study.” But at that point it’s the same as closing the topic and having that pointer to links (or one of the many prior climate change discussions) as the notification in the closed topic.
1 Like
Both sides need to be allowed to present their view points. And should be able to do so in an adult manner. If they can’t, then comments will be deleted. Then if it continues some will find out what a Don’t Push Your Luck Dragon is all about.
4 Likes
(Data through 2011; still relevant)
6 Likes
So where are the climate scientists getting driven around in Mercedes with both arms around models?
The climate scientists – people specializing in the “glamorous” and “high-paying” confluence of earth science and statistics – make a decent middle wage salary, probably about on par with what most research scientists who aren’t also medical doctors make. (So about the same salary as people who get their kicks discovering new and exciting species of snails.)
Executives at oil and chemical companies of the sort who fund the sources of “skepticism” – think tanks like Cato, for example – are paid much better.
So go ahead and ask “cui bono?”. If you were willing to answer it honestly you’d be getting a much different answer than what you suggest here.
4 Likes
You do realize that the great oxygenation event was accompanied by one of the most massive mass-extinctions in the history of the planet?
Puts your “all this stuff has happened before” “argument” into some perspective. This stuff hasn’t happened before in, let’s say, the last 10,000 years. You know, the years in which agriculture was invented and the global human population ballooned from somewhere on the order of 100,000 to 7 freaking billion?
No argument that the planet is going to do what it’s going to do. But it would be nice to avoid the inevitable violence, terror, and cruelty that would be inevitably involved if potable water or food ran short of being able to support such a high global population of human beings if this is at all possible.
Which I doubt it is thanks in no small part to folks like yourself who see a tautology and think to themselves “brilliant argument!”
3 Likes
Also, why do all the astroturfers have self-important superhero names like “Harvey Paradox” or “Carlos Danger”? Is it part of some personality disorder or just the result of a common algorithm for generating user accounts?
2 Likes
Well, it’s not the software, I can tell you that.
You’ll have to ask Anthony Weiner about “Carlos Danger.” Maybe “Harvey Paradox” is some other Congressman.
That’s a true, fantastic and funny animation. Thanks for posting it. F’n saved.
I suppose the $176 billion carbon exchange industry, an industry championed by Enron of all companies, is full of VW driving paupers?
Btw. I see no need to question your honesty or your screen name.
I didn’t see you complaining about the bankers who run and trade on the carbon exchanges. I saw you complain about those greedy earth scientist statisticians. Which is it? I don’t know that climate scientists are clamoring for a carbon exchange industry – I’m pretty sure most of them just advocate for a carbon tax. Can you find me even one example of a climate scientist making huge bucks in the carbon offset market?
http://www.carbontax.org/who-supports/scientists-and-economists/
Sorry, bud, but I always find it questionable when people talk about the greed of those grasping earth scientists, cite the value of the carbon offset market in which they probably don’t really participate in the first place, and ignore the fact that the value of the oil industry is measured in trillions.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
