Why 200 US Climate Scientists are Hosting a 100-Hour YouTube Livestream (space.com) 133
"More than 200 climate and weather scientists from across the U.S. are taking part in a marathon livestream on YouTube," according to this report from Space.com. For 100 hours (that started Wednesday) they're sharing their scientific work and answering questions from viewers, "to prove the value of climate science," according to the article.
The event is being stated in protest of recent government funding cuts at NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the United States Geological Survey, and the National Science Foundation. (The event began with "scientists documenting their last few hours at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies as the office was shuttered.") The marathon stream features mini-lectures, panels and question-and-answer sessions with hundreds of scientists, each speaking in their capacity as private citizens rather than on behalf of any institution. These include talks from former National Weather Service directors, Britney Schmidt, a groundbreaking glacier researcher, and legendary meteorologist John Morales.
In its first 30 hours, the stream got over 77,000 views.
Ultimately, the goal of the event is to give members of the public the chance to learn more about meteorology and climate science in an informal setting — and for free. "We really felt like the American public deserves to know what we do," Duffy said. However, many of the speakers and organizers also hope the transference of this knowledge will spur people to take action. The event's website features a link to 5 Calls, an organization that makes it easy for folks to contact their representatives in Congress about the importance of funding climate and weather research.
The event is being stated in protest of recent government funding cuts at NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the United States Geological Survey, and the National Science Foundation. (The event began with "scientists documenting their last few hours at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies as the office was shuttered.") The marathon stream features mini-lectures, panels and question-and-answer sessions with hundreds of scientists, each speaking in their capacity as private citizens rather than on behalf of any institution. These include talks from former National Weather Service directors, Britney Schmidt, a groundbreaking glacier researcher, and legendary meteorologist John Morales.
In its first 30 hours, the stream got over 77,000 views.
Ultimately, the goal of the event is to give members of the public the chance to learn more about meteorology and climate science in an informal setting — and for free. "We really felt like the American public deserves to know what we do," Duffy said. However, many of the speakers and organizers also hope the transference of this knowledge will spur people to take action. The event's website features a link to 5 Calls, an organization that makes it easy for folks to contact their representatives in Congress about the importance of funding climate and weather research.
Not relevant (Score:5)
The science is not relevant.
The effects of global warming on the USA and Europe are not relevant to why there is a large and well funded movement against climate science.
Qui bono.
Re: (Score:3)
The science is not relevant. The effects of global warming on the USA and Europe are not relevant to why there is a large and well funded movement against climate science. Qui bono.
I am not sure that is correct. The science seems to be irrelevant. Most of the science is directed at telling us what we already know. We know global warming is happening. We have a pretty good understanding of what would reduce and eventually end it. The barriers to doing something are political and economic, not scientific knowledge.
Nor is the problem really public opinion. Most people accept climate change is happening. And its not better scientific information that is going to change the minds of peop
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean we can say that but Jimmy Carter was talking about climate change back in the 1970's and the recommendations were the same as today: start planning on cutting back on burning fossil fuels, start to embrace renewable energy sources. In a perfect metaphor Carter put solar panels on the White House as a symbolic gesture only to have Reagan come in and tear them down.
We haven't gotten anything done precisely because "Most people accept climate change is happening" is not a true statement and when we hav
Re: (Score:3)
And the whole "private jets" and Bill Gates is a bad faith distraction used as a punching bag excuse as to why we can't do anything about the issue until we deal with those "dirty liberal elites" first, an argument straight from the playbook of other end of the "wealthy, powerful" interests. You can claim climate science is a distraction but this a bad faith distraction with malicious intent. And we know they are malicious liars because they stand in the way of any regulations that would curb that behavior like a carbon tax or restrictions on small plane use or fucking anything.
The priests and the prophets shall not be held accountable for their sins for they are The Anointed and the True Believers. Yea, though the salt of the Earth shall all bow before the Carbon God and give sacrifice to receive redemption and salvation for everlasting virtue.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it wasn't a problem, it's actually as we see a real symbolic problem but it is just that, symbolic so if you're upset about private flight use but you also wouldn't support, or support politics that would oppose say a carbon tax then you contradictory is all I am saying.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it wasn't a problem, it's actually as we see a real symbolic problem but it is just that, symbolic
Those emissions are not symbolic. And a "carbon tax" isn't going to stop emissions from those who can afford to pay it. Which is most emissions if you consider that wealth and emissions are pretty much joined at the hip. Almost all creation and use of wealth has associated emissions. And all emissions are associated with the creation and use of wealth.
You want real emission reductions, not invented ones. Most people in the world never fly anywhere. Eliminating passenger airlines would have no effect on them
Re: (Score:2)
1.8% of 4% which is private flights vs all flights of worldwide carbon load. Yes it's technically not symbolic in that yes it contributes but we are basing our prescriptions for the 99.5% off a 0.5%, where else do we do this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
where else do we do this?
How many emissions are avoided by replacing a perfectly good furnace with a heat pump? If you reduce the problem down to one action then no one has to do anything because it is insignificant. Of course, that is exactly how we all feel about our own contribution.
Re: (Score:2)
You just are not listening or maybe I am not clear.
Nobody is saying to just leave private flights alone or that reducing them doesnt help, thats the person you are arguing against in your brain.
My point, I will repeat it, that this obsession with private flights and using as an excuse for inaction is bad faith and distracting.
Also heat pumps makes my point, what has expanded the use of heat pumps? Did we price hike gas furnaces or ban them? No, we made subsidies and combined with rising fuels costs and wow,
Re: (Score:2)
combined with rising fuels costs
Exactly, we raised the price of natural gas. The cost of home heating went up and putting in a heat pump became a way to save money. Did the subsidies help? Yes. But someone without air conditioning adding a heat pump to air condition their home is not reducing emissions.
You are ignoring the reality that someone buying an EV's doesn't actually reduce emissions, it increases them. People aren't "replacing" an ICE vehicle, they are simply adding another vehicle to the road and someone else is using the ICE
Re: (Score:2)
Who raised the price of natural gas?
Someone who would otherwise not be driving any vehicle because there wasn't one available.
This scenario makes up a tiny fraction of buys, 98% of the time said person is driving some sort of car before they buy said used car, they are trading, it's sideways. And it ignored all the other points of inducing demand.
Someone who otherwise would be driving that used vehicle is now walking, biking, taking the bus or skipping the trip.
This belies the reality of America where many, many don't have that option. I'd love it if they did but they don't. Your scenario does not work in reality. Mine does (it's happening right now)
Re: (Score:2)
This belies the reality of America where many, many don't have that option.
The reality is that if there isn't a vehicle available those are the only options. But you are right, make a vehicle available and they will take that option. And someone buying a new vehicle, EV or ICE, means there is one more vehicle available for someone who didn't previously have that option. And they will use it to take trips instead of walking, riding a bike, using transit or skipping the trips entirely.
This scenario makes up a tiny fraction of buys, 98% of the time said person is driving some sort of car before they buy said used car, they are trading, it's sideways.
That is complete nonsense. Yes, most people trade in a car when they buy a different one, new or u
Re: (Score:2)
And we know they are malicious liars because they stand in the way of any regulations that would curb that behavior like a carbon tax or restrictions on small plane use or fucking anything.
Right, a carbon tax will get Bill Gates out of his jet. This is actual the malicious lie.
we can't do anything about the issue until we deal with those "dirty liberal elites" first,
That is right, because the "liberal elite" are no different than the "conservative elite" in using their power to protect their interests. The idea is that we need to have policies that allow people who can afford it to opt out of any change. And that is exactly what we have. Carbon offsets are the classic example. Bill Gates buys carbon offsets and somehow the emissions from his jet disappear.
We got the first major climate legislation literally like 3 years ago
And it was mostly a green-
Re: (Score:2)
Right, a carbon tax will get Bill Gates out of his jet. This is actual the malicious lie.
I get wanting the satisfaction of wanting to do a bit of moral punishment but we should also support the actual economic href="https://www.econstatement.org/">economic thing. Are we all capitalists and do we accept some econ 101 stuff here or not? What do you want to do, a literal "no private jets law"?
How do subsidies to encourage people to add an electric car to the fleet reduce emissions?
By making the cars cheaper in an understanding a new technology carries a high price tag so incentivize sales and infrastructure by bringing price into parity. Again, this is econ 101, induce demand. We
Re: (Score:2)
What do you want to do, a literal "no private jets law"?
Yes. In fact, no private air travel at all. Can we actually end climate warming with everyone flying? I don't think so.
making the cars cheaper in an understanding a new technology carries a high price tag so incentivize sales and infrastructure by bringing price into parity
Right. So to be clear this was an incentive to promote the car industry. It will get people to buy cars with a high emission price in construction instead of driving their existing car.
On the other hand, if you want people to stop buying new ICE cars you increase the price of new ICE cars. And when fewer people buy new ICE cars, there eventually are fewer used ICE cars for people to drive
Re: (Score:2)
What do you want to do, a literal "no private jets law"?
Yes. In fact, no private air travel at all. Can we actually end climate warming with everyone flying? I don't think so.
making the cars cheaper in an understanding a new technology carries a high price tag so incentivize sales and infrastructure by bringing price into parity
Right. So to be clear this was an incentive to promote the car industry. It will get people to buy cars with a high emission price in construction instead of driving their existing car. On the other hand, if you want people to stop buying new ICE cars you increase the price of new ICE cars. And when fewer people buy new ICE cars, there eventually are fewer used ICE cars for people to drive
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. In fact, no private air travel at all. Can we actually end climate warming with everyone flying? I don't think so.
Cool, good luck with writing that law in a way that only restricts the people and flights we consider "private" or maybe the simpler solution is to charge for the externality created and then use collected funds to fund your other reduction efforts elsewhere and the market will adjust. Hell we can make the taxation progressive off the emissions-per--passenger-mile. I mean more power to you but it's going to be way more disruptive.
Also I don't know if you realize but cars eventually stop working. You're
Re: (Score:2)
Cool, good luck with writing that law in a way that only restricts the people and flights we consider "private"
Private means anyone traveling in a private plane. It excludes military planes and little else. Its not really that hard, you just abolish "private" airlines.
then use collected funds to fund your other reduction efforts elsewhere and the market will adjust.
So why does someone who can afford it stop flying. This is exactly what people see. The solution is for people who can't afford it to change their behavior while people who can afford it are unaffected. Its not hypocrisy its pure self-interest. And it will fail to stop climate change. Because the people who create most of the emissions can use the mone
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, draw a legal, enforceable and constitutional line between commercial and private that excludes all private flights but does not exclude any commercial flights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between "commercial" and "private" is blurry at best. Can't do it by aircraft size or are we banning personal aircraft? I can go call up a company and charter a Gulfstream for myself, is that "commercial" or "private"? I don't own the plane but I am buying an entire flight for 1 person but what's the difference between that and buying a ticket on a United 737?
It's not unconstitutional in the idea but it could be written or enforced in an unconstitutional manner. My point is why deal with al
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell do you mean "we haven't gotten anything done"? We literally did those thi
Re: (Score:2)
https://yaleclimateconnections... [yaleclimat...ctions.org]
Maybe it was for missiles but they did it quietly so no real answer, but I am inclined to believe as they were symbolic going up they were symbolic coming down.
Curiously — and this may say it all — the Reagan administration also allowed Carter’s financial incentives promoting renewables to expire around the time that the panels were removed. Tax credits established in 1977 for homeowners installing solar water heaters ended Dec. 31, 1985, just months before
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://learningenglish.voanew... [voanews.com]
https://www.ap.org/news-highli... [ap.org]
https://columbiainsight.org/th... [columbiainsight.org]
Carter and his admin could see the two were related in the long term vision for the nation.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, that is bs, Yes Carter was ahead of his time, but it had nothing to do with "global warming". There was something called "peak oil". We were going to run out of it in the near future. And there was an immediate shortage. There were all sorts of efforts at energy conservation, but it wasn't driven by any concern about global warming. A lot of it was driven by the huge increase in energy costs.
This is a bunch of people using is legacy for their modern agenda.
Re: Not relevant (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was literally a press statement from the Carter admin concerning climate change and enough recorded comms that they could see two bad things combined; oil shocks and climate change that point to the same conclusion.
Why doesn't it read?
Re: (Score:2)
Carter's White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued three reports contending with global warming.
I would love to find an original contemporaneous source for that claim. Because I was working on alternative energy and conservation at the time and I don't remember any mention of global warming or climate change. It certainly wasn't part of our messaging.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
https://insideclimatenews.org/... [insideclimatenews.org]
Re: (Score:2)
My view is that the policy implications of this issue are still too uncertain to warrant Presidential involvement and policy initiatives.
That is a direct quote from the 1977 memo.
Re: Not relevant (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's still plenty of denial about the causes of climate change,
There are still people who claim the earth is flat. No one is doing any research to disprove it. The barriers to reducing emissions are economic and political, not factual. Its hard to convince someone of something when their livelihood depends on it not being true. I think that idea is attributed to Mencken
Re: (Score:2)
There's still plenty of denial about the causes of climate change,
There are still people who claim the earth is flat. No one is doing any research to disprove it. The barriers to reducing emissions are economic and political, not factual. Its hard to convince someone of something when their livelihood depends on it not being true. I think that idea is attributed to Mencken
Thank you.
This is what I meant when I said "The science is not relevant".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The changes being proposed as required are painful for everyone.
I have yet to see a seriously proposed change that will be painful for Bill Gates. The fact is there have been painful changes for coal miners in the US and lots of other people around the world. But almost none of those touch the affluent to the point of it being painful.
Re: (Score:2)
The changes being proposed as required are painful for everyone.
I have yet to see a seriously proposed change that will be painful for Bill Gates. The fact is there have been painful changes for coal miners in the US and lots of other people around the world. But almost none of those touch the affluent to the point of it being painful.
I hate to tell you this, but the rich will always have far more ability to work around change than you or I, so any change that is painful for Bill Gates will be far more painful for you. That is just reality. Unless you plan to just specifically target rich people, maybe rob them at gunpoint or something, but even then the climate still won't notice.
Re: (Score:2)
so any change that is painful for Bill Gates will be far more painful for you.
A ban on private jets would have zero effect on me. I think it might be painful for Bill Gates. Limiting the size of houses to limit the emissions associated with heating and cooling them would have zero impact on me. It might be a problem for someone who can afford several large mansions.
the rich will always have far more ability to work around change than you or I
I think that is true, but one of the ways they work around it is by controlling what changes are considered. If we decided to ration emissions, I might not be affected at all if the ration was large enough. It would be a v
Re: (Score:2)
A ban on private jets would have zero effect on me. I think it might be painful for Bill Gates.
It would have zero effect on the climate too. It would be a hardship for them flying business class I suppose. Without private jets the commercial airlines might step in and offer a higher tier of service. Now if you want to do something meaningful you could restrict flying for everyone. That probably won't fly in any democracy though, no pun intended.
If we decided to ration emissions, I might not be affected at all if the ration was large enough. It would be a very unpleasant change for Bill Gates
To actually be a meaningful quota it is going to have to be pretty low (I think I already mentioned 2 tons as an ostensible "sustainable" target) and you
Re: (Score:2)
It would have zero effect on the climate too
It would certainly have a bigger impact than a person getting rid of their gas stove or switching from 2 gallon per 100 mile hybrid to an EV.
Now if you want to do something meaningful you could restrict flying for everyone.
I agree. We should ban airline travel in general.
That probably won't fly in any democracy though, no pun intended.
It would certainly be easier to ban private jets if the only issue was the number of people affected. But in reality, not letting the wealthy fly private jets would be harder politically than making airline travel more expensive. This is why you hear support for a carbon tax, it only affects those who are price conscious
Re: (Score:2)
It would certainly have a bigger impact than a person getting rid of their gas stove or switching from 2 gallon per 100 mile hybrid to an EV.
All of those things have no impact unless hundreds of millions of people do them. No individual's emissions are even a mere speck in the global total. Entire developed countries could go mostly un-noticed, rhetorically speaking.
I agree. We should ban airline travel in general.
Reality is going to be quite the let down for you.
This is why you hear support for a carbon tax, it only affects those who are price conscious.
I'm Canadian. We just got rid of our carbon tax, at least for now. I'm not convinced it is entirely dead though, it may still require more whacks in the future.,
Re: (Score:2)
All of those things have no impact unless hundreds of millions of people do them.
There would be no climate change without them either.
Reality is going to be quite the let down for you.
Probably. More likely we will solve the problem of air travel by making flying too expensive for a lot more people. The same way we prevent people from flying around in private jets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think any democratic government that tries to mess with people's vacations won't be in office for long.
Most people don't fly off on vacation. But your assumption that it is "a line too far" for the privileged who do is probably correct. We have a crisis, but even the people who understand the crisis are not willing to sacrifice any of their lifestyle to address it. So they keep saying it isn't really necessary. I think the evidence that we can painlessly address climate change is slowly disappearing as new carbon emissions increase even as its obvious there is already too much carbon in the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you liars ever shut up?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not relevant (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
India has many people in grinding poverty with very low emissions and some with a standard of living little different to the typical European.
There are no examples of countries that low that don't have grinding poverty. As soon as you become a consumer your footprint rises quickly.
Better is to look at what, with clean energy, better insulated homes, etc., what is possible then see how close that is to 2 tons.
You can't live a modern western lifestyle and expect EVs and better insulation are going to make the world net zero by 2050. It's probably never going to actually be net zero, and certainly not anytime soon. Don't blame me, I don't control reality.
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as you become a consumer your footprint rises quickly
Whilst true, countries with similar Western standards of living can have quite different carbon footprints.
You can't live a modern western lifestyle and expect EVs and better insulation are going to make the world net zero by 2050.
It seems like it's worth trying, even if it simply slows the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Out of touch (Score:5, Insightful)
It is hard to relate to people who expect the public to tune in, even partially, for a five-day livestream on a topic where meaningful action rarely follows. Most of us are busy with work, family, and everyday commitments - we simply cannot have the luxury of dedicating time to passive discussions.
If you really want to make an impact, make the arguments more relatable to your audience.
Re:Out of touch (Score:5, Insightful)
> If you really want to make an impact, make the arguments more relatable to your audience.
If you keep living like you do, your grandkids won't have as good a life as you have. Can't be simpler than that.
Now any 80+ IQ person will ask "why?", and that's where this marathon comes in. There's nothing simple about this issue.
Re: Out of touch (Score:2)
Re: Out of touch (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I woke up this morning like every other day. This is historical data. Therefore, I'm immortal.
Your death will (hopefully slowly) become more predictable as newer historical data is added. Unlike your (and my) bodies, the human condition is on more of a continuous upswing. I'm sure that will come to a halt one day, but not anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
> the human condition is on more of a continuous upswing.
Only in the past 200 years. Otherwise it was pretty constant...
Re: (Score:2)
the human condition is on more of a continuous upswing
You have to assess things on their own merits, not assume that past trends apply. Assuming trends continue is how you get things like tulip mania.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to assess things on their own merits, not assume that past trends apply.
I expect life in 2125 will look as different from today as today looks relative to 1925. I won't be here to see it of course, but I have no reason to expect life won't be better for the majority of the inhabitants of the planet. Not saying life will be great for everyone, it never has been, but people have been predicting doom since there were people and here we are, all 8 billion of us. It's hard to take the end of the world seriously as we rocket towards 10 billion.
Dude you're old enough to know what a telethon is (Score:2)
It doesn't work though because arguments don't work anymore. Billionaires bought virtually all of the media so you can't get your message in front of people and even if you can it's going to be instantly counteracted by a deluge of right wing propaganda.
What they need to be doing is focusing on voter suppression so that we can shift the Overton window by winning elections bu
Please explain.... (Score:2)
I keep seeing the average temperature of the planet measured to a tenth of a degree.
1) What is the definition of this? For example, how deep in the ocean do you go?
2) How much data is involved? Won't it be some huge number of terabytes?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Koch Brothers paid a bunch of scientists to prove the figures being released by the IPCC and clinate scientists wrong. The scientists they paid concluded (in direct contradiction to the argument that scientists say what they're paid to say) that the figures were broadly correct, and that the average planetary temperature was the figure stated.
My recommendation would be to look for the papers from those scientists, because those are the papers that we know in advance were written by scientists determined
Re: (Score:1)
I mean at least with regards to the NWS and NOAA this is all published, public information, what the sensors are, where they are located, their historical data, it's just the skeptics have a financial anf ideological interest in acting like all this information does not exist
https://www.weather.gov/about/... [weather.gov]
https://www.weather.gov/coop/ [weather.gov]
(this has over 4000 sites participating)
Re: (Score:2)
Planet surface temperature, sea is a different dataset, land surface temperature too. Let me google that for you: https://cds.climate.copernicus... [copernicus.eu]
And that's just one instance. NOAA has (had?) its own.
Re: (Score:3)
How is that in any way responsive to my questions?
Re: (Score:2)
You can download the datasets, see the size by yourself.
Reading about the datasets will tell you what the definition is.
Digging through the various data sources will give you the answer to how it is measured.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably better suited
https://climate.copernicus.eu/... [copernicus.eu]
https://climate.copernicus.eu/... [copernicus.eu]
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly:
https://climate.copernicus.eu/... [copernicus.eu]
Anyone that tells you that they know what the temperature of the entire planet was to a couple of tenths of a degree in 1860 is lying.
Re: (Score:2)
> the temperature of the entire planet
That's not how any of this works...
Re: Please explain.... (Score:2)
Preaching to the choir (Score:3)
Unfortunately no opinions will be changed.
People are married to their 'alternate facts'.
Marathon-level boredom (Score:2)
...and just like with any marathon-grade event, it's going to be an absolutely borint and uproductive event with very low attendance numbers.
Why? (Score:3)
Why? Because they want more funding, and they're scared of Trump.
What you won't see (Score:2)
A cost-benefit analysis comparing various options for responding to the reality of global warming. Reducing emissions being only one of the options, and which has not made a difference up to now and looks certain to fail in meeting targets.
Re: What you won't see (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"If people can't have both benefits for the now with benefits for the future then maybe we need to work harder on providing options to hold off global warming."
I agree with this. Because everything you talk about involves reducing emissions in some way, which is not working. An asking people to go hungry now for the sake of the future is not going to happen. Other options needed.
Numbers (Score:2)
In other words, the general population does not care at all.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
this is literally saying nothing, snark for the sake of snark, good to see teenagers back on this site
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
this is literally saying nothing, snark for the sake of snark
As opposed to every lying politician citizens blindly believe and repeatedly elect that will ignore the shit out of everything from 5 Calls anyway? You are not who they Represent. Neither is the "climate" they fly through with private jets.
How the hell do you think we got here. As if organizing a phone-the-reason is gonna help? Sorry if far too much history is feeding my obvious pessimism here.
(~600 watching on the live stream. Sad to see they're basically saying everything to an audience of nothing.)
Re: (Score:1)
"politicians bad" why would you say something so controversial yet so brave?
yawn, this performative apathy is so fucking boring and just reeks of willful, purposeful ignorance.
you're boring and you have nothing to say besides how miserable you are, so sure, defend the liars and the cretins so you can feel superior about your admitted pessimism.
Re: The new Telethon. (Score:2)
Good...raise donations for buiding a solar farm (Score:2)
I'd expect them to at least raise money to build a solar panel farm to offset a coal fired electricity generated plant.
There's been 2 generations of researchers and research projects, and somehow, that research money never got partially spent on solving the problem by building a solar panel based electricity generation facility.
It's about $1 per watt of generation capacity as of last year. https://www.marketwatch.com/gu... [marketwatch.com]
https://www.eei.org/delivering... [eei.org]
Re: (Score:1)
yes, give me more performative conservative virtue signaling, embrace your descent into becoming the modern social justice warriors. two of you can have a struggle session about those mean ol' scientists
Re: The new Telethon. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So the libertarian think-tankers at the Heartland institute [wikipedia.org] which is most famous for working with Philip Morris and the tobacco companies to discredit any research around smoking harms, those folks are totally on the up and up, no way they would have a subversive financial interest. Those millions from Exxon and oil companies, nothing to see here!!! (Don't) Follow the money (too closely)!!!
Re: (Score:2)
I legitimately think you gen Xers are suffering from lead poisoning. You’re so freaking stupid.
Re: 200, Is this a joke? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Earth is cooked and the only hope of the Muskian bloodline surviving is by establishing an ethnostate of Elon's descendants on Planet Mars.
(A pity for the 7 billion humans unrelated to the Musk family to become extinct but dismantling NASA and funneling proceeds of DOGE to SpaceX is for the greater good, surely.)
Re: (Score:1)
Relinquish your 2 strawmen:
1) most people don't believe in climate change
2) most people don't believe in man-made climate change.
Reality:
Most people believe that man-made climate change is a rounding error compared to natural climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people believe that man-made climate change is a rounding error compared to natural climate change.
Most people don't believe that either. Most people accept that in the short run human emissions are having an immediate effect on the global climate change that is happening in a human timeframe. Its just not clear that they can do much about it.
The problem is lack of possibilities that give them hope. People don't worry about stuff outside their control. That is the category climate change is placed in.
Frankly, climate science isn't helping any with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, climate science isn't helping any with that.
Why should it? It's science. It's meant to advance our understanding of how and why things happen.
If you want to actually fix the problem, you need to put the engineers in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should it? It's science. It's meant to advance our understanding of how and why things happen.
Tell that to the climate scientists. I suspect you won't find many grants that talk about their contribution to human knowledge. Nor are they going to argue that cuts to their funding will have no effect on the efforts to prevent climate change.
If you want to actually fix the problem, you need to put the engineers in charge.
Right. Because engineers are experts on human behavior and public policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to the climate scientists. I suspect you won't find many grants that talk about their contribution to human knowledge. Nor are they going to argue that cuts to their funding will have no effect on the efforts to prevent climate change.
From the EPA:
EPA’s supports research focusing on a few important aspects of how climate change affects air, water, the environment and human health:
* Investigating the impact of climate change on air pollution gases and particles, water quality and ecosystems
* Understanding the underlying factors contributing to changes air pollution and water quality
* Using modeling tools to better understand the impacts of extreme events on air and water quality as well as provide better modeling tools to predict air, water and ecosystem characteristics under a changing climate.
There exists a reality outside of your head. Please consider looking at it every once in a while.
Right. Because engineers are experts on human behavior and public policy.
Climate change is accidental geoengineering. Fixing it is geoengineering. But sure, put talk show hosts and lawyers in charge. They'll talk their way out of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
There exists a reality outside of your head.
I am trying to figure out a reality where a bunch of criteria for EPA grants all tied to global warming don't confirm my point.
Climate change is accidental geoengineering
Only in the mind of an engineer who has a hammer and for whom everything looks like a nail.
Re: (Score:2)
If the light bulb is large enough, Musk can pay a non-MAGA person to screw him inside, so one.
Re: PR Marathons (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: PR Marathons (Score:3)
Re: If this is such an important event... (Score:2)