The Environment
06-23-2016
, 10:10 PM
06-24-2016
, 02:49 AM
It's nice that the denial camp has shifted from "climate change is not happening" to "catastrophic climate change is not happening". Progress!
Shifty: if the current trend continues, at what point do you think it will become a bit of a problem?
(from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ )
Shifty: if the current trend continues, at what point do you think it will become a bit of a problem?
(from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ )
06-24-2016
, 08:09 AM
Quote:
It's nice that the denial camp has shifted from "climate change is not happening" to "catastrophic climate change is not happening". Progress!
Shifty: if the current trend continues, at what point do you think it will become a bit of a problem?
(from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ )
Shifty: if the current trend continues, at what point do you think it will become a bit of a problem?
(from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ )
What trend is that, The global temperature rising by 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 130 years? When will it become a problem, When people stop having access to cheap, plentiful, reliable energy.
06-24-2016
, 08:17 AM
06-24-2016
, 08:21 AM
Quote:
When has the climate not changed? How come the alarmist camp started using climate change instead of global warming? My main issue is the banning of fossil fuels not hoaxing.
What trend is that, The global temperature rising by 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 130 years? When will it become a problem, When people stop having access to cheap, plentiful, reliable energy.
What trend is that, The global temperature rising by 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 130 years? When will it become a problem, When people stop having access to cheap, plentiful, reliable energy.
06-24-2016
, 08:41 AM
06-26-2016
, 03:03 AM
07-03-2016
, 12:05 AM
07-03-2016
, 03:53 AM
Quote:
Going down the rabbit hole a bit more. So, on the very first page of the paper you can see it's produced by a group called the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. They don't hide or try to bury that fact, which is good. But this is already a huge red flag--legit research papers are usually done by actual scientists or universities, not by nonprofit organizations. There is a ton of this stuff being passed around as real science on the internet these days, so you have to be particularly careful. That goes as much for a paper that decries the evils of GMOs as it does for a paper like this which handwaves away manmade environmental impact.
If you go to the third page, they have a description listed of their group. But this is not the same description they've always had apparently!
Current description:
Gee, that sounds swell. They're an innovative research and education charity. Kids need educating, that is so nice!
Then I googled the name of the org. I got this google result, which points back to their home page:
Now I couldn't find this particular text on their website anywhere. So I checked Wikipedia. I found a link to an "About" page on their website. This is what it linked to:
So I deduced what had happened. They started out with the original description, and at some time they realized that was giving away their cards. So they changed it to something a little more mysterious and a little more philanthropic sounding. They took away the Conservative and Libertarian in their description. There's a lot of this kind of fake scientific research going around, and it looks like they're getting better at it every day. The content is basically meaningless, but it is nice fodder for forum posts and social media arguments where you are asked to produce real scientific evidence. It's not scientific, not in the slightest--but at first glance it does appear to be. Very powerful stuff.
If you go to the third page, they have a description listed of their group. But this is not the same description they've always had apparently!
Current description:
Gee, that sounds swell. They're an innovative research and education charity. Kids need educating, that is so nice!
Then I googled the name of the org. I got this google result, which points back to their home page:
Now I couldn't find this particular text on their website anywhere. So I checked Wikipedia. I found a link to an "About" page on their website. This is what it linked to:
So I deduced what had happened. They started out with the original description, and at some time they realized that was giving away their cards. So they changed it to something a little more mysterious and a little more philanthropic sounding. They took away the Conservative and Libertarian in their description. There's a lot of this kind of fake scientific research going around, and it looks like they're getting better at it every day. The content is basically meaningless, but it is nice fodder for forum posts and social media arguments where you are asked to produce real scientific evidence. It's not scientific, not in the slightest--but at first glance it does appear to be. Very powerful stuff.
But counterpoint: what if I really really want to believe the conclusion this paper comes to?
Last edited by suzzer99; 07-03-2016 at 03:58 AM.
07-12-2016
, 05:27 AM
07-12-2016
, 08:56 AM
07-12-2016
, 09:28 AM
07-12-2016
, 11:21 AM
07-12-2016
, 06:23 PM
