Dozens of Scientists Find Errors in a New Energy Department Climate Report (npr.org) 133
A group of more than 85 scientists have issued a joint rebuttal to a recent U.S. Department of Energy report about climate change, finding it full of errors and misrepresenting climate science. NPR: The group of climate scientists found several examples where the DOE authors cherry-picked or misrepresented climate science in the agency's report. For instance, in the DOE report the authors claim that rising carbon dioxide can be a "net benefit" to U.S. agriculture, neglecting to mention the negative impacts of more heat and climate-change fueled extreme weather events on crops.
The DOE report also states that there is no evidence of more intense "meteorological" drought in the U.S. or globally, referring to droughts that involve low rainfall. But the dozens of climate scientists point out that this is misleading, because higher temperatures and more evaporation -- not just low rainfall -- can lead to and exacerbate droughts. They say that there are, in fact, many studies showing how climate change has exacerbated droughts.
The DOE report also states that there is no evidence of more intense "meteorological" drought in the U.S. or globally, referring to droughts that involve low rainfall. But the dozens of climate scientists point out that this is misleading, because higher temperatures and more evaporation -- not just low rainfall -- can lead to and exacerbate droughts. They say that there are, in fact, many studies showing how climate change has exacerbated droughts.
Gosh Really (Score:5, Insightful)
In the dumbing down of Amurika anyone is surprised at this? That's what happens when the stupid in control fire all the smart people.
Re:Gosh Really (Score:5, Insightful)
At this point, if any other country attacks the US, we'll simply launch retaliatory ICBMs against ourselves. Given who has the launch codes.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Gosh Really (Score:2)
Depends on your hygiene and proximity to your last shower. Your statement is just an echo of the prior post about the sex recession. I really do feel sorry for you repressed Millennials and Gen Z'ers.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sex recession" is an anwful expression that causes ambiguity with other related phrases. For instance, does "going bust" in this context mean getting nothing, dressing in drag, or a sexual position requiring certain generous physical endowments? It also makes "Bear Market" sound like a niche nightclub and inflation like something viagra can help with, and I now dread hearing about anyone's gross domestic product.
You're being charitable. (Score:2)
At this point I think calling the official lies "stupid" is being overly charitable.
Re: (Score:2)
[dog sits amidst fire]
Re: (Score:2)
On the plus-side, if all the smart people starve or go someplace else, nobody will understand how and why things are going to hell!
Re: (Score:2)
Just to point something out. I don't think they are not smart for writing such misleading reports, they just need to put food on the table. What I mean is - the politics forces them to lie for money. It happens far more often than you think, especially in time of economical struggles and crisis. They could grow a pair, though, lose the (additional?) income (bribe?) and be truthful to themselves for once. Doing that certainly has its own merits.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, true, but wouldn't you really rather have a Funny mod?
Story had some potential for humor, but...
Re: Gosh Really (Score:5, Informative)
Which experts do we like today? Climate experts still good, but experts in DEI, mRNA, and Iran diplomacy are bad now right? A chart of whom I should trust today would be great, does MSNBC have one?
I'll simplify things for you. The people that orange jesus hired and appointed are nothing more than colossal ass kissers, yes men, and other deplorables. Let's start with RFK Jr's own words.
I don’t want to seem like I’m being evasive, but I don’t think people should be taking advice, medical advice, from me
That was at a goddamn congressional hearing. https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
The head of the Department of Education is the wife and former CEO of WWE wrestling. She's elderly and when handed a paper to read she kept mistaking the acronym "AI" as "A1" as in the steak sauce. https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Let's talk about alcohol and domestic violence enthusiast https://www.pbs.org/newshour/p... [pbs.org] Pete Hegsth who texted top secret bombing information to a journalist. https://abcnews.go.com/Politic... [go.com] He's still somehow employed. Anyone else would be sitting in a supermax jail right now.
Nothing but incompetent assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Pete Hegsth who texted top secret bombing information to a journalist. https://abcnews.go.com/Politic [go.com]... [go.com] He's still somehow employed.
It's because he did it intentionally.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he did. Of course. *whispers* of course *wink*.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Gosh Really (Score:2)
How many relevant points can you add?
Re: (Score:2)
The question was, literally, "Which experts do we like today?"
I believe that was addressed by the highly relevant post above.
Please learn how to read.
Re: (Score:2)
You really are desperate to deny reality. The above was giving the big picture, as opposed to 47 using a marker to change the course of a hurricane (it didn't), for example, or him firing a statistician because he didn't want to be told that the job market sucked.
Re: Gosh Really (Score:5, Informative)
And there it is folks, they'd rather live in the fantasy that real data does not exist then possibly live with the fact they might be on the wrong side of an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
What would I have to show you to be considered "real" data.
Give me parameters first or an example of real data or is you claim it doesn't exist
Re: (Score:2)
We'd have a pretty sizeable die-off in about 10 minutes.
Re: Gosh Really (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you have any data with margins of error small enough that you can't tell the opposite story and still be supported by the data?
Define "margin of error" in the context of temperature data from satellites.
Are we talking about the measurement precision (+/- 0.1 degrees)? If so, that's so small that nobody would even bother mentioning it.
Are we talking about the fact that you can only sample at certain intervals because of a limited number of satellites? If so, is your theory that between those samples, the temperature suddenly drops ten degrees for a few minutes before the next satellite comes over and jumps back up just in time to be measured? Because that's what would be necessary for the margin of error for that sort of data to be meaningfully large, and weather does not generally work that way.
Data (except for random sampling/polling data) does not generally have a margin of error that's large enough to matter. Climate data definitely does not have a margin of error large enough to make opposite predictions.
Climate *models* may have wide margins of error, but that's entirely different from data. And climate models, despite wide margins of error, have generally shown themselves to be accurate enough to correctly predict the rough direction and amount of future temperature changes, which precludes any possibility that they are actually pointing in the opposite direction from reality.
Maybe if you actually read some of the research papers and looked at the data instead of parroting what a bunch of oil barons and their sponsored talking heads on right-wing media are saying, you'd understand this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just for everyone else this is game
The data that I don't like == "left wing", "biased"
I could show them anything from anywhere and if it argues that climate change is real it will be branded left wing.
This isnt an argument about data its one of ideology.
Re: (Score:3)
Global warming has gone through multiple rebranding attempts for a reason
Because people are too mathematically and scientifically uneducated to understand it?
It has been rebranded climate change because although the average is getting warmer, that doesn't mean that every specific individual area on the planet is getting warmer for all 365 days per year. Some are getting colder because of changes in weather patterns. But the overall average is trending upwards.
Scientists got tired of people saying, "Herp derp, if global warming is real, why did we have record snowfall?" which s
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly does an "expert in DEI" do?
Usually work for universities [www.oulu.fi]. As for what they accomplish, that's anyone's guess...
Re: Gosh Really (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking personally, I like all types of expert, including climate experts, DEI experts, mRNA experts, and Iranian diplomacy experts. Same way I like wing design experts to design my aircraft wings, infection control experts to design the sterile conditions for operations I have, legal experts when I’m buying a property, and so on. Because expertise is valuable and hard-won, and competent laypeople have humility.
I remember a line from the HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics: “Keep within your scope of practice”. The failure to do this, and the hubris to reject the very concept of a scope of practice, is the central grotesquery of Trump’s team.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you, some kind of elitist snob??!
Re: (Score:2)
Yep!
Re: (Score:3)
For how long did medical experts oppose handwashing before surgery (like Garfield's physician) or say that homosexuality is a disease? Do you trust drapetomania experts?
Yes, yes, there's no such thing as absolute, perfect truth, and science is a sequence of approximations that asymptotically approach truth rather than a mystically perfect oracle. Duh.
That's no reason to discard hard-won expert knowledge. Yes, it's always partly wrong and occasionally very wrong, but it's nearly always dramatically closer to correct than non-expert belief. For example, what did common people believe about the origin of infection prior to the understanding of germ theory? And what was t
Re: (Score:2)
There *were* no medical experts at the time when handwashing wasn’t common practice. It was impossible for anyone to be an expert, because we didn’t have enough knowledge for there to be such a thing as medical expertise. The exact same is true for drapetomania.
Re: (Score:1)
"Smart" people took over the Democratic Party, and then the working-class absconded to the Republicans because they felt the elites looked down on them.
But that is wrong. We don't look down on them. They only think we do because they're stupid morons.
Was that an attempt at humor? And who was supposed to be the target of that insult? It looks like you are trying to claim both sides of the political aisle are stupid.
Maybe instead of arguing on the problem we should look to finding an agreement on a solution. I thought we got to agreement on a solution years ago:
https://www.ans.org/news/artic... [ans.org]
After decades of Democrats singing like Meatloaf on how they will do anything for global warming but they won't do "that" they changed their tune and agrees with
Who runs the DoE? (Score:5, Informative)
In case you wonder who now runs the DoE, it's Christopher Wright, former CEO of the country's second largest fracking company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Who runs the DoE? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually his industry ties are irrelevant. The important bit of who runs the DoE is someone sympathetic to Trump's agenda who agreed to help implement Project 2025. That's all. Trump set this specific direction and picked this guy, that's all you need to know about this guy's history.
Re: Who runs the DoE? (Score:5, Insightful)
Otoh, it explains he's not just stupid, but he knows exactly what he's doing when he's lying to the public for his personal gain.
Re: Who runs the DoE? (Score:4, Informative)
My point is the industry is irrelevant. Lying for personal gain is literally the job of everyone Trump has hired. And to be clear, this applies to most politicians in general, but *usually* the heads of government departments aren't this bad. Their one job is to be loyal to the agenda and get renumerated for being so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So nothing, that is my point. The OP postulated some nefarious scenario that this is the result of industry ties, I'm trying to say it's nothing to do with it, it has to do with Trump policy, the industry is actually irrelevant.
Re: (Score:1)
In case you wonder who now runs the DoE, it's Christopher Wright, former CEO of the country's second largest fracking company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]...
What else is on that Wikipedia page?
Chris Wright was born in 1965 and grew up in Colorado. He earned a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering and a master's degree in electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).[6] He was a graduate student in electrical engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, and at MIT.[7] Wright and his wife, Liz, live in Englewood, Colorado.
Wow, that's a bit impressive. That reads like an introduction to Tony Stark from an Iron Man comic book. Maybe he is some kind super hero. Can someone check his basement for powered suits of armor? Ah! Maybe he can build us an ARC reactor! Can someone check his basement for miniaturized fusion power packs?
On the other hand who was the Secretary of Energy under Biden? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
In 1980, at age 21, she became a naturalized U.S. citizen,[16] and worked for John B. Anderson's campaign for president of the United States as an Independent in the 1980 election. She then enrolled at the University of California, Berkeley, the first person in her family to attend college.[9] She was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and graduated in 1984 with a B.A. in political science and French.[9] During a year in France, she helped to smuggle clothes and medical supplies to Jewish people in the Soviet Union[9] and became involved in the anti-apartheid movement.[9] She then earned a Juris Doctor degree at Harvard University, also with honors, in 1987.[9] At Harvard Law School, Granholm served as editor-in-chief of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review.
I'm not going to claim Granholm is unintelligent or uneducated, cl
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to claim Granholm is unintelligent or uneducated, clearly that's the CV of a someone that is smart and motivated but it reads more like someone that would work in the DOJ, State, maybe Interior, than Energy. How did she land in Energy?
Here's the Granholm plan to increase oil production in America: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So, basically to observe that it's market driven and that the government doesn't really directly control it?
Re: (Score:2)
So, basically to observe that it's market driven and that the government doesn't really directly control it?
No, basically she was a box-ticking incompetent moron put in charge of the DOE. The government doesn't have to directly control it. They just have to create policies that incentivize producers.
Re:Who runs the DoE? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, that's a bit impressive. That reads like an introduction to Tony Stark from an Iron Man comic book.
So the majority of my family members are superheroes, like you seem to think this guy is. Since they have more education, does that make them better superheroes? Seriously though, way to oversell the guy. A lot of us on Slashdot are nerds, but we still know that Tony Stark is a fictional character... Plus, quite honestly, if there were a real, actual Tony Stark, whether we are talking about the comic book version or the MCU version, I would not want that guy actually running the Dept. of Energy. Did you not notice in the MCU movies how many of the threats they faced were caused directly or indirectly by Tony Stark?
I'm not going to claim Granholm is unintelligent or uneducated, clearly that's the CV of a someone that is smart and motivated but it reads more like someone that would work in the DOJ, State, maybe Interior, than Energy. How did she land in Energy?
So, while yes this does mean that he has education in a more technical field, you do realize that, from what you wrote, he only has a master's degree and she has a doctorate, right? I mean, if we're making it that sort of contest.
Now, I will agree that I tend to prefer people to have technical training when they are going to manage technical people. However, any job heading such a department is going to have a lot of policy and legal details to attend to as well as technical details. The head does not need to be a technical director as long as they know how to actually listen to advice from the people who know what they are talking about. Also, having ulterior motives and serious conflicts of interest tend to negate potentially positive qualities.
While RFK Jr. is a lawyer that at least did some legal cases concerning drugs, water quality, food quality, and generally legal cases about health.
Now, RFK Jr. is actually a great example. He is someone who, strictly speaking, would actually be qualified for his job. A lot of policy and legal stuff involved in HHS, so he could theoretically be a good leader even without medical expertise... if he were someone who would listen to advice from experts. However, he obviously is not. He has a bunch of crazy notions and biases that he is pushing on the department, creating a huge mess.
This looks like Trump appointed him to pay back some political favors.
It looks that way because it is that way. I'm pretty sure Trump pretty much said that he was going appoint him to a position in charge of health policy in exchange for him backing out of the race and endorsing Trump. I think he hedged it with a "probably", but I don't think there's any real doubt that a deal was struck.
In any case, Wright is a clear example of the revolving door between industry and policymaking. One clearly in the plutocratic upper echelons, no less. His decisions are bound to be dripping with self-interest.
Re: (Score:1)
So the majority of my family members are superheroes, like you seem to think this guy is. Since they have more education, does that make them better superheroes? Seriously though, way to oversell the guy. A lot of us on Slashdot are nerds, but we still know that Tony Stark is a fictional character... Plus, quite honestly, if there were a real, actual Tony Stark, whether we are talking about the comic book version or the MCU version, I would not want that guy actually running the Dept. of Energy. Did you not notice in the MCU movies how many of the threats they faced were caused directly or indirectly by Tony Stark?
I thought being so over the top I'd make the point I was trying to be humorous. I didn't expect that to be taken seriously. I do know Tony Stark likely broke as much as he fixed, that was kind of the lesson on "be careful what you wish for" that made his story arc so interesting.
So, while yes this does mean that he has education in a more technical field, you do realize that, from what you wrote, he only has a master's degree and she has a doctorate, right? I mean, if we're making it that sort of contest.
The "contest" was more on the width and breadth of Wright's CV than depth. He did a little of a lot of things in energy and so that made him appear a good pick for energy and more than just someone that knew how to squeeze oil fr
Re: (Score:2)
You only cribbed her education. What did she do in her career/ She was a prosecutor, DA for Michigan, Governor of Michigan for 8 years (term limited), including during the financial crisis and related meltdown of the auto industry. Her Wikipedia entry contin
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you for highlighting what I missed. I guess I didn't look close enough. I see now how people would have justified Granholm for leading Energy.
Re:Who runs the DoE? (Score:4, Interesting)
A group of more than 85 scientists have issued a joint rebuttal to a recent U.S. Department of Energy report about climate change, finding it full of errors and misrepresenting climate science. NPR: ...
In case you wonder who now runs the DoE, it's Christopher Wright, former CEO of the country's second largest fracking company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
From my point of view as a non US American, this is just another four years the rest of the world has gotten to put the US even farther behind it in the rear view mirror on the road to next generation energy generation and transportation tech than the US already was. This is all about prolonging the agony of shedding the legacy industrial burden of the US than it is bringing industrial production back to the US and forging a path into the future of technology. These old moss backed conservatives with their longing to return to the 1950s will be remembered as the people who lost the US it's technological lead.
Re: (Score:2)
In case you wonder who now runs the DoE, it's Christopher Wright, former CEO of the country's second largest fracking company.
Sadly, that probably makes him the most qualified member of the Cabinet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You really do think about gay and trans people constantly.
Whataboutism [Re:Who runs the DoE?] (Score:2)
This is a classic example of whataboutism [theconversation.com].
The great thing about whataboutism as a tactic is that your "but what about XX?!" doesn't even have to be true. The object is to derail the conversation, and a statement that's dubious or arguable is just as good, maybe better, at derailing the conversation.
How to define a woman, or whether a district attorney should be considered "a cop", is nothing but attempts to change the subject.
Kamacho's gang doesn't like criticism (Score:3)
Re: Kamacho's gang doesn't like criticism (Score:2)
Wow, the trumpistan kind and his ilk lie? (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the background of spotless honesty so far, I'm trully amazed. Let me sit down for a moment.
BTW, MAGATs, the "ultimatum" to putin has lapsed, and right now putin is executing another massive rocket attack against civil infrastructure in Ukraine.
What is the trumpistan king who made the ultimatum going to do?
Grab another TACO?
Re: (Score:3)
I think Trump is sitting on his golden shitter wondering "But why is Putin doing this. I used caps in my tweet and everything!"
Re: (Score:3)
I am shocked not by what trump is doing, I'm shocked by how easy his base is swallowing all that propaganda.
As for trump, I don't know if he even cares about it, being too busy counting the cash from all that grift.
The latest pump'n'dump example:
https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a recent interview with John Bolton. https://www.youtube.com/live/C... [youtube.com]
As far as the DOE ignoring facts that disagree with his talking point. Just more of the same.
He and at least half of his staff seem to be reality TV stars and think that way.
Republicans - Where factoids live (Score:3)
It's not an error if you meant to write it (Score:4, Insightful)
We should categorize these not as 'errors', but as deliberate lies in the service of the fossil fuel industry, who Trump openly promised would get whatever they wanted if they helped him win the election.
Re: (Score:1)
We should categorize these not as 'errors', but as deliberate lies in the service of the fossil fuel industry, who Trump openly promised would get whatever they wanted if they helped him win the election.
That reminds me of a meme from Seinfeld which I recall as, "Remember Jerry, it's not a lie if you believe it."
This is why I often preface statements with "as I recall" or "I believe" or something to that effect. Nobody can accuse me of lying with that, unless they can somehow prove I didn't actually recall something or I didn't believe what I was saying. Can anyone prove the authors of the report were lying? Can anyone show they should know different? I'd expect that any report from a government office
Re: (Score:3)
I'll repeat here that I don't much care what is said, I want to know what is being done. Is the Trump administration getting in the way of onshore wind anywhere?
Yes.
Let's try a search, shall we? Is the Trump administration getting in the way of onshore wind [duckduckgo.com]?
I don't believe so.
ROFL!!!
The earlier part of your post said "This is why I often preface statements with "as I recall" or "I believe" or something to that effect. Nobody can accuse me of lying with that, unless they can somehow prove I didn't actually recall something or I didn't believe what I was saying."
And here you are demonstrating that technique!
Re: (Score:1)
Let's try a search, shall we? Is the Trump administration getting in the way of onshore wind?
Here's one of the results:
https://www.fastcompany.com/91... [fastcompany.com]
Tech companies are driving energy demandâ"and they still want renewables
âoeDemand is huge,â says Jim Spencer, president and CEO of Exus Renewables North America, a company that develops, owns, and manages utility-scale renewable projects. The biggest reason: Tech companies are racing to build data centers as AI grows, and need an enormous amount of energy overall. By 2030, global data centers could require more than twice as much energy as they do now, with most of that demand coming from the U.S., according to the International Energy Agency. âoeIâ(TM)ve been doing this for 35 years and Iâ(TM)ve never seen such high power demandâ"wind, solar, storage,â Spencer says.
So, according to Jim Spencer there's more new construction of wind, solar, and storage than ever now even after looking bck 35 years into history. Most of the other results had people expressing "concern" or "fear" or something about what could happen in the future than what is happening in the present or what we've seen so far in the past. Apparently 95% of new wind and solar construction is on private land where the federal government can't rea
Re: (Score:2)
Let's try a search, shall we? Is the Trump administration getting in the way of onshore wind [duckduckgo.com]?
Here's one of the results:
https://www.fastcompany.com/91... [fastcompany.com]
Tech companies are driving energy demandâ"and they still want renewables
"Demand is huge," says Jim Spencer, president and CEO of Exus Renewables North America, a company that develops, owns, and manages utility-scale renewable projects. The biggest reason: Tech companies are racing to build data centers as AI grows, and need an enormous amount of energy overall. By 2030, global data centers could require more than twice as much energy as they do now, with most of that demand coming from the U.S., according to the International Energy Agency. "I've been doing this for 35 years and I've never seen such high power demandâ"wind, solar, storage," Spencer says.
So, according to Jim Spencer there's more new construction of wind, solar, and storage than ever now even after looking bck 35 years into history.
Did you actually read the words you quoted? It says that tech companies want renewables. It says nothing about the Trump administration helping.
Meanwhile, going down the list of links from the search [duckduckgo.com] in order, rather than scrolling two screens down to cherry pick one you like, here are the opening words from the top five hits:
1. On his first day in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that attempts to slow the growth in the country’s wind generation capacity.
2. U.S. Presi
Re: (Score:1)
It says nothing about the Trump administration helping.
What more do you want when wind and solar power was pointed out to be doing the best we've seen in at least 35 years?
Is the Trump administration getting in the way of onshore wind? Yes.
Only on federal land. 95% of new wind and solar power capacity has been on private land.
So what if Trump refused any new permits on federal land? If that's a problem then maybe the issue is deeper than permits. As in perhaps the federal government owning so much land that POTUS could threaten to kill the renewable energy industry single-handed. Since there's other land to build then POTUS
Re: (Score:2)
It says nothing about the Trump administration helping.
What more do you want when wind and solar power was pointed out to be doing the best we've seen in at least 35 years?
What more I would want to answer a question about what the Trump administration is doing to help wind power is a link stating that the Trump administration is helping wind power.
As for the article pointing out that wind power is still coming on line, the very article you linked explicitly stated that this isn't due to Trump:
Planning and building new power generation takes years, so new projects that are opening now have been in the works since long before Trump took office
The section on the models is hilarious (Score:1)
P 123 It shows the good fit of the climate models to the period 1850-1990 ignoring the fact that that is the data the models are trained on. Great the models fit their training data. big fucking whoop.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
P 123 It shows the good fit of the climate models to the period 1850-1990 ignoring the fact that that is the data the models are trained on.
You are confusing climate models with AI models. Climate models are physics based; at their heart they are all about following the flow of heat transfer from solar input to eventual radiative heat rejection. Unlike large language models or neural network models, you don't "train" them by saying "here's a bunch of data, make up a model that fits."
The earliest detailed climate model, and still the one most referenced in the literature [princeton.edu], is Manabe and Wetherald 1967. It was purely a heat transfer model, not "tr
Reputation loss (Score:5, Insightful)
A really sad part is the damage to the reputation of US government publications.
If a student is writing a research essay, they are taught to maintain a list of references from reliable sources that support their writing. These include academic journals of course, but can include reputable newspapers or government reports.
If US government reports are thought to be no longer suitable as refererence material...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that has as much to do with the tendentiousness of #followthescience bullshittery for the last 20 years on global warming and the previous presidency on COVID?
"Scientists" have lost credibility all over the place by trading their nominal objectivity and reputation to advance obvious political agendas. Don't blame the public for being skeptical of the piles and piles of research products that - as it turns out, seem to have reproducability issues as well.
To say nothing of all the Very Important People
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody here is 'anti science'.
Just some of us look at all the data, not simply that that confirms our dogma.
Science is about asking questions, even if you don't like the answers, not a cultish adherence to One Given Truth and shouting down anyone asking inconvenient questions.
No surprises here (Score:3)
The Trump administration is not going to do anything about climate change. They will not carry water for someone else's cause, especially if it makes them look bad when they encourage the expanded use of fossil fuel.
'science' (Score:3)
Seems like science isn't really science when politics get involved.
Certainly on a complex subject like this is very easy to leave important factors out and bend the outcome of any publication.
It happens both with D and R governments, malicious people on both sides. Both sides.
Re: 'science' (Score:5, Informative)
Both sides, huh? But only one turns off measuring stations, fires people who tell you the sky is not the colour you want, and in general only accepts science when it says what it wants to hear. The other side might bend unfavorable reports or ignore certain outcomes, but that's very different from what's happening now.
Then again, we're getting an influx of good scientists in NL now. Climate scientists are basically well trained physicists, so thanks for sending them to us. We need quite a few more for the photonic chips industry, the ASML chip fabs, the two other semiconductor companies, the energy transition etc. etc. and getting more into NL from the US is a rather nice boost.
Re: (Score:1)
For someone who is supposedly smart, you should try harder to not be an idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, I was wondering if he was trying to be a satire themed account doing an act...
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that a smart person would know how to conserve mental energy far more efficiently than you.
Trump Confounds The Science (Score:3)
Hello darkness my old friend.
It’s time for him to tweet again,
but first he’ll have to check in with fox news
‘cause that’s the only place he gets his clues.
That’s how things get planted in his brain,
where they remain,
and it confounds the science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
They're not errors (Score:1)
Fine Trump (Score:4, Interesting)
It is not only trump ... (Score:3)
... it is the whole republican party that is actively sabotaging the truth that they perceive as inconvenient. (pun)
tRump Lies (Score:3)
Hmmm... (Score:2)
No big surprise (Score:1)
What can you expect (Score:2)
when your President is a Climate-Change Denier? (And proud of it!)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you dumb? This is not only about direct deaths.
Re: (Score:2)
Off topic and it doesn't make me look younger but with you highlighting it, his username reminds me of Joe 90:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Who knows? With his low uid, maybe Joe 90 inspired him when he chose his user name...
Pictures:
https://www.bing.com/images/se... [bing.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent rebuttal. I see that MAGA hat isn't constricting the flow of blood to whatever you're using as a brain at all.
Re: (Score:2)
what will ever become of life, when the climate becomes more like the areas with the most bio-diversity?
We'll never know because mankind will be extinct if the climate change follows its current trajectory.
Re: (Score:2)
what will ever become of life, when the climate becomes more like the areas with the most bio-diversity?
We'll never know because mankind will be extinct if the climate change follows its current trajectory.
No.
Climate change is real. The currently observed climate change is caused by human produced gasses in the atmosphere. Climate change will have bad effects (and, in particular, the speed of anthropogenic climate change is faster than ecosystems can adapt). But, no, climate change will not cause extinction of humans.
Stick to the actual facts, please. Making up fake predictions in order to scare people has no effect except to feed ammunition to the deniers.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll never know because mankind will be extinct if the climate change follows its current trajectory.
No.
Climate change is real. The currently observed climate change is caused by human produced gasses in the atmosphere. Climate change will have bad effects (and, in particular, the speed of anthropogenic climate change is faster than ecosystems can adapt). But, no, climate change will not cause extinction of humans.
Stick to the actual facts, please. Making up fake predictions in order to scare people has no effect except to feed ammunition to the deniers.
You are deep in denial. Current projection estimate that extinction of the human race becomes a real possibility from 4C upwards. We are already at something like 2.5C locked in (i.e. nothing can be done to prevent that anymore) and are going strong at increasing that number. Oh, and at around 3C, collapse of civilization becomes pretty likely.
Eocene climate optimum [Re:a warmer more tropi...] (Score:2)
Climate change is real. The currently observed climate change is caused by human produced gasses in the atmosphere. Climate change will have bad effects (and, in particular, the speed of anthropogenic climate change is faster than ecosystems can adapt).
But, no, climate change will not cause extinction of humans. Stick to the actual facts, please. Making up fake predictions in order to scare people has no effect except to feed ammunition to the deniers.
You are deep in denial. Current projection estimate that extinction of the human race becomes a real possibility from 4C upwards. We are already at something like 2.5C locked in (i.e. nothing can be done to prevent that anymore) and are going strong at increasing that number. Oh, and at around 3C, collapse of civilization becomes pretty likely.
Nope. In the early Eocene, temperature was already six degrees C higher than today. Mammals had no problem living and thriving.
Climate change is not going to cause the extinction of humanity. I don't know where you get your information from, but you are reading fake projections meant to scare people, not real extrapolations based on science.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll never know because mankind will be extinct if the climate change follows its current trajectory.
No.
Climate change is real. The currently observed climate change is caused by human produced gasses in the atmosphere. Climate change will have bad effects (and, in particular, the speed of anthropogenic climate change is faster than ecosystems can adapt). But, no, climate change will not cause extinction of humans.
Stick to the actual facts, please. Making up fake predictions in order to scare people has no effect except to feed ammunition to the deniers.
You are deep in denial. Current projection estimate that extinction of the human race becomes a real possibility from 4C upwards.
Some scientists believe that a large percentage of the human race would die with a sustained temperature increase of 4 degrees celsius because the planet wouldn't be able to accommodate them, though that is not a consensus by any means.
What is pretty certain is that at the current rate, within a few decades, a lot of major cities will be too hot to sustain their populations, and that people will end up either leaving or consuming massively more energy to make conditions survivable, and that if we don't have
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are like cockroaches. Some will survive to fuck things up again (unlike the roaches.)
Re:a warmer more tropical world (Score:4, Informative)
The most biodiverse climate zone right now will also see climate change, causing their current occupants to die out, if they aren't able to adapt or move away quickly enough.
It will take about 100,000 years until the radiation of the remaining species into new ecological niches will fill up the gaps.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The primary problem is not the temperature increase or the much, much rougher weather. The primary problem is the speed of the change. If we had 100'000 years or even only 10'000 years to adapt (as in previous changes of this nature), it would not be much of a problem. But we have 100-200 years and that is utterly catastrophic.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have overlooked all the nice, already pretty large desserts in there or that humanity is critically dependent on agriculture.
Well. It is a pity that the people that understand what is going on and try to do something will die with the demented masses.
Re: (Score:2)
more whataboutism [wiktionary.org]!
This has nothing to do with climate; it's just an attempt to deflect to a completely different subject.