typodupeerror

• #### Re:Not surprised... (Score:5, Funny)

on Friday July 29, 2011 @04:00PM (#36926220) Journal

So basically, you're saying that anyone from that school is an inept moron who is unqualified to judge anything?

• #### Re: (Score:2)

i see what you did there

• #### Re:Not surprised... (Score:5, Interesting)

on Friday July 29, 2011 @04:10PM (#36926356)
Well, in addition to that, Spencer has a history of publishing spurious analyses which have been debunked over and over again. It's not only global warming he is railing on about, he obviously is an expert in evolution, too, and therefor, naturally, a proponent of intelligent design. Signing an "evangelical" statement which basically says "God provides, therefor global warming cannot be real" is just the icing on the cake. Do I need to mention the Heartland Institute or his self-proclaimed title of "Glenn Beck's climate expert"?
• #### Re: (Score:3)

In other words, once again, the denier gang has trumpted a questionable paper by a questionable guy from a questionable institute. This has truly become the AGW-denier version of Intelligent Design's "teach the controversy" scam.

• #### Evidence? (Score:2)

I read this article. But it seems to me, this is Slashdot. We should demand some actual evidence of "wrongness" rather than just taking the words of people whose careers depend on it being wrong.

The Bad Astronomer himself does not exactly have a reputation of being unbiased on this subject.
• #### Re: (Score:3)

Siding with the evidence is not the same as being biased. Developing an intelligent opinion does not make one biased. Even believing GW doesn't exist isn't biased in and of itself. Getting paid by ExxonMobil introduces a conflict of interest and thereby bias, however.
• #### Re:Evidence? (Score:5, Informative)

<mtobis@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Friday July 29, 2011 @04:11PM (#36926366) Homepage Journal
We should demand some actual evidence of "wrongness".

.

Fair enough. Here you go. [wordpress.com]

taking the words of people whose careers depend on it

Phil is an astronomer. And methinks you are a troll.

• #### Re:Evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)

on Friday July 29, 2011 @04:13PM (#36926382)
Obviously someone on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, someone with a history of bullshit claims, someone who discredited himself a scientist by endorsing "intelligent design", however, has a reputation of being unbiased and can be believed. No, the bad astronomer has the burden of proof. Sure.
• #### That's funny (Score:4, Interesting)

on Friday July 29, 2011 @03:54PM (#36926148)
I noticed the same point being brought up in the recent feed page when the first story was submitted, yet the editors didn't seem to pay any attention to it. Then a day or two later a different story gets posted with the same information.

Uncharitable interpretation: The editors aren't doing their job.

Charitable interpretation #1: A large group of people voted for the first submission, while a different large group of people voted for the second submission. The editors are just being agnostic and giving us what we (collectively) ask for.

Charitable(?) interpretation #2: The editors know that climate stories get lots of discussion, so they figured two different stories on the subject means we get to have twice as much "fun" yelling at each other about it.
• #### Re: (Score:2)

A large group of people voted for the first submission, while a different large group of people voted for the second submission.

I for one voted for both as interesting. imo 'interesting' is value-free - and both POVs regarding the same paper are thrilling (as a substitute for interesting...) - I don't understand the /. modders attitude to misuse 'interesting' as 'I agree'.

• #### Wrong discussion (Score:4)

on Friday July 29, 2011 @03:55PM (#36926164) Homepage

The point is that we're using way too much energy and food and pollute our own habitat and nobody cares.
Oh well. Evolution will find a way after we're gone :)

• #### Re: (Score:3)

Thank you. I kept scrolling, hoping someone would already have brought this up. What happened to polluting the sea, smog, acid rain, cancer, asthma? What happened to sustainability, fairness? The shift to a debate over "global warming," which can be argued for decades, has co-opted what should have been plainly obvious discussion of environmental policy.

• #### Re: (Score:3)

We cleaned up a whole bunch of that stuff. The environmentalist 'alarmism' of the 70s and 80s had an effect, and as a result laws were enacted to reduce the damage to the environment. LA air is a lot cleaner now, despite many more cars than were in the 80s.
• #### Re: (Score:3)

The point is that we're using way too much energy and food and pollute our own habitat and nobody cares.

Too much is arguable. You perhaps. A lot of us tend to try and reduce our impact on the planet.

A LOT of people care about pollution.

The disconnect is that some people are claiming CO2 is pollution because of a long term effect they claim will occur, which they cannot come close to proving. Otherwise CO2 is not a pollutant at all.

Fight real pollution, not bullshit.

• #### Re: (Score:3)

But hardly anyone thinks about pollution in any real way. They go with what 'feels' right.

"which they cannot come close to proving. "
already proven, in 1859 by John Tyndall. CO2 cause the temperature to rise is a well know scientifically proven piece of physics.

CO2 is a pollutant

FYI: Man made CO2 has a different isotope then a naturally occurring that why we can track it.

• #### Simply wrong (Score:3)

which they cannot come close to proving

Climate science was pretty much proven in 1979 [ucla.edu] by any reasonable objective scientific standard. You can learn learn about the history of the "debate" here [youtube.com]. This is a short 10 minute clip on what we know about climate change [youtube.com].

It is easy to see anti-AGW arguments fall flat on their face when you look into the history of each claim, and read the sources of each claim and the responses. It is surprisingly little work.

• #### Caution (Score:3)

on Friday July 29, 2011 @04:01PM (#36926234)

Let's conveniently ignore the following:

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ [nasa.gov])
Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" (http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ [nasa.gov])

Until it says "most scientists agree that we needn't worry about AGW" I'll keep worrying about AGW.

• #### Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

Appeal to authority. Very typical of religious movements - you've just replaced the Pope with nasa.gov.

I'll start believing in CAGW when *any* alarmist makes a clear, concise list of observations that would falsify their hypothesis, and then we all try *really hard* to look for those observations, and are completely unable to find any. That's called science.

• #### Re:Caution (Score:5, Informative)

on Friday July 29, 2011 @04:44PM (#36926868) Journal

Appeal to authority is not always fallacious. For instance, if your mechanic says "The reason your car is overheating and your smelling combustion products in your coolant is because your head gasket is blown", he is speaking as an authority, and is very likely right.

From http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html [nizkor.org]:

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

You know, sort of like how pseudo-skeptic organizations will find some guy with a physics degree who denies AGW, thus committing a fallacious appeal to authority.

• #### Re:Caution (Score:4, Insightful)

on Friday July 29, 2011 @05:12PM (#36927394)
Here's the thing. For domains where I have a solid basis to form an opinion, I am perfectly willing to do deep reading to from my own opinion on the subject. I do not, however, have a solid basis in climatology. I wouldn't have the faintest idea of how to synthesize the raw data available into a working model or even critique somebody else's. The only sane option I have in this (and very many other) fields is to trust those who make it their life work to study the field. Are you really so arrogant as to think you are any different?

In the case of our politicians, usually their fields of expertise extend to business and law. They don't have any basis other than listening to the authorities in the field to even begin having a reasonable opinion on the subject, or any other scientific field of study. If the experts are legitimately conflicted, then they have to make tough decisions, and hopefully do so with the humbleness required to see that they are flying blind. If the experts in the field largely agree, which is more or less true per GP with regard to global warming, then our politicians should be using that as a basis for policy (while still, of course, reasonably hedging their bets in case they are wrong and we find new, more appropriate models as the science advances).

Now, the only way I can get anything like that out of my politicians is if the general populace stops thinking that reading blogs for 30 minutes gives them the required basis to have a meaningful opinion on a subject. It's cool that you are into science and all, but unless you have the skill set required to critically analyze research papers on climatology, there is no "we" that should do anything regarding the research presented. There is only a "they", and the "they" is made up of climatologists working in the field. And do you know what answer "they" have given us? It's that "... the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the 'greenhouse effect'" per the article listed above.

If we keep electing politicians that think they know better just because they agree with our own poorly-informed views, it's eventually going to be the death of us all.
• #### But what about the damned data? (Score:3, Insightful)

on Friday July 29, 2011 @04:07PM (#36926318) Homepage

I'm not defending the article in question, but this one is just a big a pile of crap as the other.

Granted, the original had a sensationalist headline and the article was distinctly written from a skeptic's perspective.

However - shouldn't we be looking at the raw data and either confirming or debunking it?

To Paraphrase this article: "You don't to need to see the data because people who stand the most to lose if this research is right are telling you it is bull. And you shouldn't ask any questions because the guy who did the research doesn't agree with the people this research doesn't support. Oh, and did we mention he thinks there's a creator? So it's only an *IF* he's right, and we've already explained that we don't need to verify this because, as you can see, he's just some crazy bastard who took funding from an energy company. We don't see any reason to go beyond the *if* and neither should you. Yeah, he's a corrupt, quack job for sure.. nothing to see here..."

Give me *real* scientific process.

Seriously - WTF happened to the scientific process? By this measuring stick, both articles are flawed. Can we get back to the real question now?

The goal is to scientifically understand our environment so we can make better predictions and protect it. Nobody I know wants dirty air or polluted water; climate change proponent or skeptic. So can we kindly STFU with that kind of crap and focus on finding the truth instead of trying to gain political points and power?

*sigh* - rant over-

• #### A pox on all their houses (Score:2, Insightful)

by Anonymous Coward

Most climate science on both sides of the argument is on shaky ground. I totally agree with Freeman Dyson.

My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. T

• #### Re:A pox on all their houses (Score:5, Insightful)

on Friday July 29, 2011 @04:45PM (#36926898) Journal

Could you point me to the papers that Al Gore has published on AGW. For that matter, can you point me to the articles that Freeman Dyson has published on AGW.

• #### Re: (Score:3)

Did they give you a day off from harassing children passing over the bridge?
• #### Why are we pussy-footing around this? (Score:3, Interesting)

on Friday July 29, 2011 @04:18PM (#36926466)
Roy Spencer, the co-author of the "gaping hole" study, is on the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation [wikipedia.org].

These folk believe, among other things, that God will not allow the Earth to be harmed by Global Warming:

"The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels to provide affordable, abundant energy is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use of fossil fuels, no matter the cost. Is that idea true? We believe not. We believe that idea – we'll call it "global warming alarmism" – fails the tests of theology, science, and economics."

This is not science.
• #### Speaking of Forbes (Score:3, Insightful)

on Friday July 29, 2011 @04:23PM (#36926546)
Ursus Bogus [forbes.com]. Just sayin'...

People get so worked up over this shit. This isn't science - the "science" is pretty inconclusive otherwise there wouldn't be so much name calling. Nah, this is politics. And politics has absolutely nothing to do with science.

• #### Gaping Hole (Score:4, Funny)

on Friday July 29, 2011 @06:18PM (#36928380)

Am I the only one who misses the old days when a post like this would reliably contain an obfuscated Goatse link within the first three comments?

#### Related LinksTop of the: day, week, month.

Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso

Working...