Conversation
Notices
-
>1970s: THE EARTH IS COOLING. WE NEED REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH
>1990s: THE EARTH IS WARMING. WE NEED REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH
>2000s: THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING. WE NEED REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.
>2010s: THE WEATHER IS CHANGING. WE NEED REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.
- Hazukashii and My Life Is A Fuck like this.
- My Life Is A Fuck repeated this.
-
@augustus > five minutes ago: a camwhore pouts on camera then sighs. ‘Give me money, you dorks’.
-
@delores @augustus The change from "global warming" to "climate change" is to have fewer idiots saying "I found this snowball outside city hall and that means global warming is a sham" and people actually believing it.
-
@delores @augustus The ozone layer has basically healed since we stopped destroying it back in 1978.
-
@augustus @animeirl You do realize that abstract says there are natural warming effects that may now be subsiding and this is slowing down warming due to CO2? And yet we still have heat records broken every year?
It does not say that global warming is solely due to these effects, because if you look at the temperature graph there is nothing linear about it.
-
@augustus @animeirl @memeity If AGW is real, how do you find reputable anti-AGW positions? False balance.
-
@augustus @animeirl @memeity Greenhouse effect is real, extent to which it matters is pretty clear (not to me, but if you ask the right people), there is no sign of *routine* tampering with datasets, but we truly are ignorant of the end effect, because there is so little we know about the various buffer systems.
We thought the warming was slowing down and then it turned out it was just heating the oceans instead. We thought that CO2 increase was slowing down and then it turned out it was turning the oceans slightly acidic instead.
When scientists say "[well, we know this bit, but frankly as it goes on we'll learn more, so we have these projections. we believe this middle one until proven otherwise, but it could be worse, could be better. anyway, you should really take action like the middle one is what's going to happen]", media goes with "in 30 years this will be the scenario, scientists said so".
-
@clacke @augustus @animeirl @memeity We always come back to the same thing, which is that most of the media should be fed into wood chippers.
-
@augustus @animeirl @memeity I'm saying if someone happens to be right, then desperately searching for a reputable source claiming otherwise is not the right thing to do. Search for reputable sources and see what they're saying *is* the right thing to do. If they all happen to agree, it might be a huge conspiracy/skewed incentive/whatever, but it could also be that there are no reliable counter-evidence. Probably a mix.
-
@augustus @animeirl @memeity When we are observing a historically unprecedented rise in temperature, and the main predictor of it is human action.
-
@augustus @moonman @animeirl @memeity The second biggest flaw is people who overestimate how easy a 51% attack is, and believe that searching for and finding a few dissenting papers means they have uncovered the Truth.
-
@clacke @augustus @animeirl @memeity if you want to disbelieve in something, you don't need to have a majority, you just need to punch enough holes in the reputability of positive claim. Solely disbelieving things is no way to build a future, though.
-
@augustus @animeirl @memeity I come to that conclusion by thousands of scientists hired by hundreds of uncoordinated actors -- states, NGOs and companies -- coming to that conclusion. The correlation between industrialization and the temperature graph makes it plausible, but decades of research conclude that this correlation is mainly causation.
The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were nothing like what we're seeing now. And regardless whether the ice age cycle is 100000 years or 40000 years, the exponential rise we are seeing only 10000 years after our latest ice age ended doesn't fit that model.
-
@augustus @animeirl @memeity
> it is extremely coordinated
Pre-IPCC you simply don't have a case for this. And the IPCC was only formed once it was abundantly clear since two decades what was going on. They're figuring out the details of exactly how bad it is and what we can do about it.
-
@augustus @animeirl @memeity Correctino: The IPCC was only formed once it was abundantly clear what was going in. It's older than I thought and policy makers were less behind the times than I thought.
-
@memeity @augustus @animeirl (. But they are all in the pockets of Big CO2! .)
-
@noyoushutthefuckupdad @augustus @animeirl @memeity Hey, we can agree on this! Probably we don't agree on who the "leftists" are and what they tell us, though. But it's a start. :-)
-
@augustus @memeity Sounds like you're assuming there is one state in this world.
-
@memeity This is a good old comic written by the environmentalist side to ridicule the non-intervention side, but actually it makes a case for @augustus's claim:
http://greenmonk.net/2010/01/07/what-if-we-create-a-better-world-for-nothing/
If AGW is the Shock Doctrine of people in favor of limiting growth, arguing for it regardless of its validity is actually rational, and this is what @augustus is talking about.
I don't think the grand conspiracy or mass delusion argument holds, but it's not entirely unfounded.
Pulling in @moonman again, I think this part might interest you. :-)
-
@memeity @augustus ... nor the USA.
-
@augustus @moonman @memeity Of course. I just don't see that this is an example.
-
@charlag @augustus @noyoushutthefuckupdad @animeirl @memeity
China gets a lot of flak for their CO2 output, but in terms of CO2 output per person they're just on par with the USA, and they're working hard to improve their GDP without an according rise in CO2 output.
They have a lot to lose, and their partial command economy ironically makes huge change more feasible than in a free country.
-
@augustus Or you're India, or Brazil. Or one of China's partners in Africa.
But your statement was in response to the supposed coordination of climatology.
A secret cabal in Washington or New York or whichever way you think the hierarchy goes is not able to suppress every single researcher in the world, and there are now thousands of climatologists, and tens or hundreds of thousands of climatology-adjacent scientists.
And yet the supposed contrary voices to AGW are either not contrary at all, just refining the parameters and questioning specific results, or singular individuals with no traction, even though they've had decades to refute the theory, and doing so credibly could be very lucrative and gain you huge renown.
-
@augustus "credibly"
augustus pugin
Tija-nee
Hallå Kitteh
Hazukashii
All GNUsocial.no content and data are available under the