Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 Next
Comments 21851 to 21900:
-
nigelj at 06:14 AM on 25 December 2016Russian email hackers keep playing us for fools
Come on you "hacking sceptics" and see the big picture on this. Russia relies very strongly on oil and gas exports. They therefore have enormous motivation to undermine climate science, support Trump, attack Clinton and Obama etc. I would therefore not be remotely surprised if Russia is implicated in the email hacks of both clinton and climategate.
This doesnt mean Russia is an evil empire and America is allways pure and innocent. When you look at politics, foreign policy, etc,etc, there is often fault on both sides.
However right now Putin does not appear to be the quality of leader Gorbachev was. Human rights are under threat. Russias economy is in trouble and Putin is maintaining public popularity by finding as many scapegoats to blame as possible, and America is an easy target.
-
nigelj at 05:29 AM on 25 December 2016Russian email hackers keep playing us for fools
Stevecarsonr @8, Im going to agree with you on one thing.The CIA have a certain history of activities that are rather dubious and questionable, if I can put it that way. A related book is "Confessions of an economic hit man".
But the point I'm making is you need to avoid a total over reaction or total lack of trust in anything the CIA say. Some of the activities they have engaged in would have been pushed on them by certain presidents. I just dont believe they are totally corrupt or incompetent on every issue.
As I pointed out other sources have found a connection between the hacks and Russia, like the FBI. Tom Curtis has listed a whole lot more, and these sources are not known to be corrupt and its unlikely they would "all" be corrupt. You are fixated on the CIA (although I do understand why) and as a result are ignoring the weight of evidence from numerous other sources.
This is what interests me more. I believe the CIA did have weak and mistaken evidence on Iraqs weapons of mass destruction. But the point is it was obvious at a glance that the evidence was weak and the CIA never claimed it was strong evidence. It was Bush and Blair that decided to go with such weak evidence, so its unreasonable to entirely blame the CIA. The Iraq war was arguably a mistake, but thats another issue.
I believe (just my opinion here) the net result of the Iraq War was ordinary Americans including both Democrats and even Republicans have lost faith or trust in politicians and agencies of the state. Other leaks have found solid evidence that the other American spy agency the NSA exceeded its surveillance powers. This has added to the problem of trust.
Americans have over reacted to all this, and lost all trust in government and "all" its agencies. This is a step way too far, and a dangerous situation where facts and truth now become elusive and truth is whatever you want to believe.
This history has undoubtably reinforced scepticism about climate change and agencies like NASA who do the research. They have probably been labelled just another lying government agency, all because a couple of problems emerged with the CIA. But its totally irrational to deduce all agencies of the state are somehow corrupt, because of the intelligence services. I'm not saying you are doing this, but many appear to be.
Climate change scepticism increased after the Iraq war blunder and again after climategate. Its an unfortunate over reaction.
-
william5331 at 04:53 AM on 25 December 2016Infographic: climate change and 2015’s year of wild weather
In the vernacular, "You ain't seen nothing yet". When the Arctic ocean is open for significant periods in the summer, it becomes a giant solar collector. Instead of prevailing sinking air over the Arctic, we will have rising air, especially in the fall when the land rapidly cools off. We will have a typical off-shore wind going on for longer and longer periods and sucking climate zones nothward with it. This added transfer of heat from the south will ensure more melting and the perpetuation of the situation whether or not we knock carbon pollution on the head. In other words a tipping point or light switch phenomenon. I wonder how low we would have go get atmospheric Carbon dioxide before we would cause a flip back to the former situration and then how harsh that flip would be for a world that has started to adapt to the new situation.
-
michael sweet at 00:42 AM on 25 December 2016Russian email hackers keep playing us for fools
Richard,
Please provide a reference for your claim that the West engineered a coup in Ukraine, it is different that I recall.
As for proof that Russia invaded Ukraine perhaps this WIkipedia reference documenting extensive Russian military involvement in the "Ukrainian revolution" is adequate. Since the leader of the Ukrainian insurgents was a Russian officier it stands to reason that Russia was involved. There was no problem in Crimea before th e RUssian invasion.
You need to provide references for your claims.
-
Richard13699 at 21:27 PM on 24 December 2016Russian email hackers keep playing us for fools
Just a correction that I think is important to make..
I think you will find that it was the West that engineered a coup in Kiev/Ukraine (Nuland openly boasted of it) replacing a corrupt but elected government with one that was much closer to the West ie would do their bidding, even though Russia had offered some very attractive financial incentives to help the Ukrainians pay of a huge gas bill.
There is NO proof that Russia invaded the Ukraine. They did enter the Crimea to protect the people in the East who were being threatend (and later attacked repeatedly) by forces of the coup, including fascists/Neonazi elements of Right Sector/Svoboda. The Crimean population held a referendum and voted to stay closer to Russia. No surprise considering the majority are ethnic Russians and Kiev coup leaders/West wanted to take control of them and the Black Sea port of Sevastopol..
The significance of Trump perhaps being closer to President Putin and Russia (if that be so, although recent events make that hard to believe) is that there is probably less chance now of a Nuclear Winter, but more chance of ongoing climate heating. Either will be ultimately catastrophic for life as we like it but at least climate change is somewhat slower than a nuclear exchange and gives surviving sentients more chance, perhaps to prepare for further changes.
-
Tom Curtis at 20:22 PM on 24 December 2016Russian email hackers keep playing us for fools
stevecarsonr @8, the key premise of your theory is that the CIA is the only source on the claim that Russian, security agency aligned hackers were responsible for the hacking of the Democrat National Committee. That key premise is false. In particular, the private internet security firm, CrowdStrike has published its analysis of the DNC hack, revealing some of the evidence involved, and stating in the update,
"CrowdStrike stands fully by its analysis and findings identifying two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network in May 2016."
This analysis has been independently confirmed by Fidelisecurity, who state:
"Based on our comparative analysis we agree with CrowdStrike and believe that the COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR APT groups were involved in successful intrusions at the DNC. The malware samples contain data and programing elements that are similar to malware that we have encountered in past incident response investigations and are linked to similar threat actors.
In addition to CrowdStrike, several other security firms have analyzed and published findings on malware samples that were similar and in some cases nearly identical to those used in the DNC incident. Many of these firms attributed the malware to Russian APT groups."
What is more, according to Time Magazine (who does not share an owner with the Washington Post):
"The private firms admit their open source evidence is not conclusive, but say in the world of cyber-attribution, this is close to as good as it gets. Those familiar with the classified evidence say there is even more convincing information that has not been released."
That this was reported by Time Magazine undercuts the second premise of your wild claims, ie, that the reporting is through the Washington Post who are compromised by financial entanglements with the CIA.
In short, your conspiracy theory, like most such theories, is only sustainable by the careful neglect of contrary facts.
-
stevecarsonr at 18:21 PM on 24 December 2016Russian email hackers keep playing us for fools
nigelj,
"Stevecasnr @10, well at least you now admit you dont endorse Putin, because your other post certainly lacked clarity on that."
It lacked clarity on 1,000,000 other points that have no relationship to the question.
"Theres no reason to doubt the CIA have information that Russia was involved in a hack."
Their record of making stuff up? What I wrote in my earlier comment is the reason to doubt.
"You are sounding like a conspiracy theorist!"
Got me. I think the CIA helped foreign overthrow governments, and testified on the record to what turned out to be lies. Must be that I'm a conspiracy theorist. Perfect, that's that then.
-
nigelj at 18:11 PM on 24 December 2016Russian email hackers keep playing us for fools
Stevecasnr @10, well at least you now admit you dont endorse Putin, because your other post certainly lacked clarity on that.
It's not a fake news story. Theres no reason to doubt the CIA have information that Russia was involved in a hack. They have said the have very clear evidence, and have released a small part of it already. Just because their evidence on Iraq was weak, doesnt mean you can dismiss them for all eternity. Thats childish thinking. .
The FBI have also stated they have evidence Russia was involved. Are they making it up as well?
You are sounding like a conspiracy theorist! However I do agree with some of your cynicism in general terms, but dont let it overtake your assessment of Putin. He is running Russia almost like a police state, so its not a huge step to believe he or possibly his subordinates have been involved in this hack.
People in America have started to believe everything is lies, which is just absurd. The G W Bush blunder over Iraq has destroyed trust. Trump is adding petrol to this fire. Unfortunately it is also undermining trust in science.
-
stevecarsonr at 17:24 PM on 24 December 2016Russian email hackers keep playing us for fools
nigelj @9:
What have I said to endorse Vladimir Putin? Nothing. But let's throw that into the mix to somehow support our non-argument.
Anyone not endorsing the fake news story reported by the Washington Post that was allegedly produced by the highly ethical CIA must, logically, be a fan of Vladimir Putin?
Or is this a parody article and I'm the dummy that didn't get the joke?
-
nigelj at 16:35 PM on 24 December 2016Russian email hackers keep playing us for fools
Stevecarsnr @8, it's true past presidents scaremongered about Russia and the cia have a dubious history, and Chomsky is about right, but so what? Vladimir Putin is still not a good leader. read the history. Even Chomsky would probably agree.
-
stevecarsonr at 14:30 PM on 24 December 2016Russian email hackers keep playing us for fools
I love the "Russians are Coming" ploy. You think it's played out and no one will fall for it again, but no..
JFK running for president in 1960, outflanked Nixon with it. Reagan and the "evil empire" in the 80s. And now Clinton in 2016. And of course, in the meantime, countless lower level politicians showing their tough credentials.
At least this time around we have an organization with the highest ethical standards inspiring news stories.
Who would need evidence when the CIA is allegedly the off-the-record source?
Apart from a few minor ethical blemishes like overthrowing foreign governments, attempting to overthrow other foreign governments, running domestic psyops campaigns through favorable media sources, manufacturing evidence favorable to an incumbent government so they can invade a foreign country, lying on the record about torture, lying on the record about spying on oversight committees - apart from those minor pranks (I probably missed a few) - absolutely an unimpeachable source.
And the conduit for this unimpeachable off the record uninvestigable evidence - the Washington Post. Owned by Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, owner of around 17% of Amazon, and luckily, not in hock to the CIA at all. Well, apart from Amazon's $600M contract for IT resources with the CIA. But let's not get picky.
I don't even know why I wrote these comments.
The Russians are Coming. Let's get serious. We will fight them on the beaches..
[Notes for students of pointless-level picky detail - read Noam Chomsky (if you prefer left-leaning commentary), Andrew J. Bacevich Washington Rules (if you prefer right-leaning commentary), or The Intercept if you want current commentary on CIA scoops from a left perspective and also appreciate Glenn Greenwald and Hero Snowden].
-
jdeutsch at 14:26 PM on 24 December 2016Russian email hackers keep playing us for fools
Interesting. If the climate hack of 2009 had Russian fingerprints, they certainly got punished in 2010 with the record heat and massive fires. Anyone know if they saw the connection?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:49 AM on 24 December 2016Infographic: climate change and 2015’s year of wild weather
There is a new CBC News article related to this topic "Arctic temperatures soar to 30 C above normal".
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:41 AM on 24 December 2016Republicans and Democrats alike want more clean energy
swampfoxh@6,
Like you, I have followed SkS for many years.
A minor point about what has been posted on SkS regarding Republican voter support for action on climate change.
I recall many postings on SkS mentioning facts similar to the Yale/George Mason study. Admittedly some may have been in articles listed in the Weekly Updates rather than as separate postings.
A recent one (14Nov2016) was "On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics" which includes a reference and link to the NY Times article "Most Republicans Say They Back Climate Action, Poll Finds".
Other postings have been clearer about pointing out that nearly half of Republican voters accepting climate science and the need for action is a far lower percentage than among Democrat voters.
It has also been pointed out that nearly half of the Republican voters continue to fight against having to accept the actual common sense understanding of what is going on regarding climate science.
Several studies presented or referenced in SkS have clearly shown that far more than 90% of the people who dedicate their thoughts and efforts to the understanding of climate science have established a common sense understanding of what is going on. My version is:
- human burning of fossil fuels is rapidly increasing CO2 levels
- leading to a rapidly warming of the planet (and other impacts particularly in the oceans)
- and rapid climate change (that is regionally very difficult to forecast - so it will be difficult for future generations to plan for and adapt successully to)
- and the climate changes and the other damaging consequences of the efforts to most profitably exhaust the easiest to access buried hydrocarbon resources will not be beneficial to future generations of humanity (in addition to future generations have less access to resouces, riskier and more damaging is always cheaper and quicker - more profitable - if it can be gotten away with) .
I understand the challenge of getting people to accept that 'developed perceptions of prosperity and opportunity for more personal benefit are undeserved if the actions Trumping-up those perceptions are not advancing humanity to a lasting better future for all'.
Hopefully you are able to reach and disrupt the thinking of some of those who appear determined to be the type of people Nigel Farage infamously referred to when Brexit debate facts were presented contrary to his desired misleading messaging, people fed up with having experts/elites (the best of a group) explain the best understanding of what is actually going on.
It would be good to see that recalcitrant half of Republican voters (the term deplorable could be applied to them but its use clearly rubbed people the wrong way) change their minds and better understand climate science, along with the smaller portion of Democrat voters who also deplorably choose to misunderstand the subject.
-
Eclectic at 08:18 AM on 24 December 2016So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…
My apologies to moderators.
My post was a response to two posts [one now snipped] where the "author" was being obnoxiously disingenuous and "gish-gallopingly" time-wasting.
Humorous quips seemed the only worthy response to them — and his persistent and frequent spelling errors counted as "icing on the cack".
-
nigelj at 08:12 AM on 24 December 2016Infographic: climate change and 2015’s year of wild weather
More extreme weather will indeed impact the third world harder. These people live day to day where a single problem is very challenging, and will find climate change hard to cope with. They will want massive financial help, or to immigrate to other countries less affected, or with more wealth.
We should obviously help, out of compassion, but it will be a lot for western countries to deal with. It's in our interests to reduce this problem occuring in the first place, by reducing emissions. You could call that enlightened self interest. You would think political interests that promote self interest would understand this, but they often can't seem to connect the dots.
The arctic is warming at quite a rate. This surely has to alter the basic circulatory system that moves heat from the equator to the poles. This could in theory impact on things like the monsoon, in unexpected and unfortunate ways, and entire countries of huge size are adapted (just barely) to this event following a certain pattern. It affects many millions of subsistence or near subsistence farmers. Even a small change in the monsoon system will have serious impact.
-
nigelj at 07:04 AM on 24 December 2016Russian email hackers keep playing us for fools
One planet only @4, I agree with all your comments. I regretted using the term populist the second I pressed submit, because it means different things to different people. But I stand by the rest of what I said.
Personally I think populist is an idea with good and bad connotations. Popular policies are often genuinely good, and I like binding public referedums on policies, and proper consideration given to the concerns of ordinary people, and majority sentiment.
But populism can sometimes be used to unfairly oppress minorities, and Trump plays to the dark side of populism.
-
nigelj at 06:56 AM on 24 December 2016Russian email hackers keep playing us for fools
PaulD @3, I agree that climate scepticism is primarily a war by vested interests to divide and confuse, but the email hacks discussed do seem to relate to Russia, and almost certainly have a range of motives. I was just sticking to the content of the article.
Dugan is another figure on the "alternate right" and a very concerning sort of person. Scientists just doing their jobs with integrity are up against people like Dugan, and political and business interests who sometimes want to win at all costs, and who recognise no sense of fair play. Its a most uneven playing field. -
One Planet Only Forever at 06:09 AM on 24 December 2016Russian email hackers keep playing us for fools
nigelj@1,
Populist does not really mean what you are using the term for. The Populists were a political movement that included socialist objectives like graduated taxation and state ownership of railways for the public good (to improve the circumstances of the less fortunate at the expense of the more fortunate).
Even using a term like popularist may not be helpful since my 1988 Canadian Edition of Webster's Dictionary indicates that is a person who seeks wide public support (and my older Oxford Dictionary does not even include that term). The likes of Putin and Trump do not seek wide support, they seek just enough support at the right time in the right place. And the thrive on misunderstanding that leads peoples thoughts awary from understanding and supporting what is required to advance humanity to a lasting better future for all (since the actions required for that advancement are clearly contrary to many of their selfish interests).
My description of Putin attempting to not use terms that could be twisted is: 'A greedy selfish person who deliberately and willingly appeals for popular support by promoting selfishness, intolerance and many other special interest groups that would be considered deplorable by Main Stream aspects of humanity that pursue the advancement of humanity through raised awareness, new learning and better understanding'. Trump and so many other powerful wealthy people are just like Putin.
Use of 'terms' can be subject to misunderstanding, especially when the meaning of a term can be subverted the way "Sustainable" has been subverted by proponents of the burning of fossil fuels to label efforts to "Prolong" the activity that is fundamanetally not sustainable (if sustain means continue to do indefinitely - which it did and always should), and that udeniabley needs to be curtailed far before the 'Freer choices of people in an industrialized consumerism midsleading marketing ruled economy of popularity and profitability' would end it.
-
soo doh nim at 01:28 AM on 24 December 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #50
What do you guys make of the refutation(?) of this that appeared in the Telegraph?
-
Paul D at 01:07 AM on 24 December 2016Russian email hackers keep playing us for fools
Come on guys and girls.
You need to stop over analysing what 'Russia' is doing or even individuals in Russia.It is simple propaganda. The same goes for climate skeptics (in any country) etc.
There is NO interest in science. It is purely a war of intelligence and propaganda.
The idea is to confuse and destabilise the enemy. Hence you still get climate change skeptics deliberately regurgitating old lies and myths about ice, polar bears, volcanoes etc. There is no interest in science, it's purely to confuse, thereby maintaining the policy status quo or to reverse it to some previous state.
Hacking emails, denial of service attacks etc. It's all about causing disruption.Remember, this is all during peace time. Basically if war broke out, nowhere online would be safe!
We made our bed... -
chriskoz at 21:02 PM on 23 December 2016Russian email hackers keep playing us for fools
People in US as well as the rest of English-speaking world may not know who is standing behind that russian efforts to hijack western political system: Aleksandr Dugin. Specialising in propaganda and information war, employing social media, Dugin is the likely mastermind behind all latest russian hacking efforts. Consider for example this analysis. Based on this information, Dugin can be characterised as present day's Joseph Goebbels.
The same cannot be said of 2009 climate gate because there is no evidence of Dugin involvement. I don't think such nazi extremist as Dugin even cares about climate science: his motivation is purely political and not anti-scientific, and fossil fuel interests do not seem to influence him.
I'm mentioning Dugin here to remind the SkS readers how vulnerable western political systems are to such attacks: more vulnerable than we do realise. Dugin is now celebrating his big success in US and no doubt preparing for next polls in Europe: France and Germany. Unless we (western world where I also belong) find a way to stop post-truth propaganda influencing people via social media, we will continue losing that information war.
But there is no point discussing this subject here any further because it has nothing to do with climate sicence. This whole op is in fact unrelated to climate science. The link - that the 2009 climate gate hacks and 2016 election hacks that gave rise to post-truth politics of trumpism, both originated in Russia - appears incidental and perpetrators were likely different groups representing different special interests.
-
Eclectic at 16:15 PM on 23 December 2016So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…
Andrew1776, paleologically speaking, it is difficult to determine which of your alternatives is the correct one.
From a purely teleological analysis, it seems appropriate that volcanism would spew iridium, but commet impact would disperse irridium.
Andrew, you have frequently mentioned the crestaceous period — but not defined when it occurred. The very name suggests it was the period when the cockatoo evolved — and when there was a high level of sulphur in the air?
Or were you meaning the cretinaceous period? — being the new (post-Holocene) period, when the climate-science denier evolved.
Moderator Response:[PS] Attacks on grammar and spelling are not conducive to a constructive discussion and you run perilously close to ad hominem and inflammatory tone.
A constructive response would answer the question with appropriate references to back the answer.
-
nigelj at 12:31 PM on 23 December 2016Trump questionnaire recalls dark history of ideology-driven science
Michael sweet @10, I totally accept what you say, and that study seems very plausible to me.
I just picked numbers from less flattering studies, (Forbes etc) so that I'm not accused of cherrypicking the most flattering study (even though it may well be the most accurate). Even the numbers I quoted create a persuasive case for renewables.
Costs of solar and wind are all going in one direction, down, much like microprocessors did, following "Moores law". Maybe something similar is happening with renewable energy.
-
Andrew1776 at 12:29 PM on 23 December 2016So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…
Question for a geologist: Is it possible that the irridium layer was formed from volcanism? It seems to me that the most likely way irridium would cover the earth is if a commet hit the earth billions of years ago and was incorporated into the earth's crust and then melted and spewed out through volcanism that spewed the irridum into the atmosphere. Has anyone proposed this? Is there anything in the geological record that would distinguish between irridium upon impact and irridium through volcanism?
Moderator Response:[RH] I would suggest you use google scholar to do a little bit of research so that you can form intelligent questions. After that, if you have a question that pertains specifically to a topic on SkS, post it there.
-
michael sweet at 11:57 AM on 23 December 2016Trump questionnaire recalls dark history of ideology-driven science
Nigelj,
According to this Bloomburg article wind and solar are already the cheapest source of new energy in much of the world. In the USA WWS have to compete with fossil fuels that have already been built, many coal plants have no mortgage because they are so old. That makes it more difficult to compete. Coal is so expensive that coal power plants are being shut down. Mercury, arsenic and acid rain pollution are also probems with coal.
Texas has the most wind installed in the USA. They are not building those turbines because they value the environment, they are built because they are the cheapest source of energy. With the rapid decrease in cost of solar, more will be installed in the desert Western USA and individuals homes.
-
Andrew1776 at 11:49 AM on 23 December 2016So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…
Correlation is not causation. The problem with volcanic activity theory is that heat and CO2 are known to facilitate life, not destroy it. To harm plants, CO2 has to be above 7,000-10,000 ppm, which is way above what the volcanic acitivty would produce. While some organisms may do better than others, improved high CO2 and high temperatures is going to produce better living conditions for plants and is hardly a condition for mass extinction. It makes no sense.
From a biochemistry standpoint, it makes more sense that a lack of CO2 killed the dinosaurs. The carbon fixing enzyme RuBisco doesn't work well below 800-1000 ppm. The evolution of coccolithophores at the start of the crestaceous period must have cause CO2 levels to drop throughout that period. It's called the crestaceous period because its a massive chalk layer and chalk is calcium carbonate (i.e., sequestered carbon dioxide). The loss of CO2 should have had a catestrophic effect on the carbon fixing enzme Rubisco, which loses a lot of its activity below 600-800 ppm CO2. RuBisco is the universal enzyme for carbon fixation and sustain almost all life on earth. To make matters worse, flowering plants evolved during crestaceous. These plants dominate earth today. They flower in May when CO2 is at its peak. They have open stomata which allows them to hog all the CO2. They then die and come back the next year. Their ability to selectively take up CO2 in May when CO2 is high would decrease the CO2 concentration even further, eventually dropping atmospheric CO2 below the concentration needed for Rubisco to fix sufficient carbon in the then predominantly C3 pathway. Any plants that couldn't bloom and come back the next year would have died off along with organisms that ate those plants. This is true for ocean life and terrestrial life (e.g., algea blooms in the ocean).
It is hard to explain how this situation wouldn't have happened. We know the activity rates of RuBisco and that almost all life on earth is sustained by carbon fixed through Rubisco. We know the earth went from 4000 ppm CO2 to 180 ppm CO2. Even if you disagree about when it happened, logically we can agree that it did happen. As a biochemist, it seems all but impossible to think that crossing the activity threshold of RuBisco didn't have a catastrophic effect on life. How does the earth sustain life if THE carbon fixation enzyme isn't working? Over time, volcanic activity and weathering rocks would restore the CO2 and the earth would thrive. After enough cycles of mass extinctions, plants evolved mechanisms to cope with low CO2 (e.g., seeds, flowering, and the C4 pathway). It is almost certain that most mass extinctions were caused from plants fighting over CO2 and just like all populations, when they consume all of their food (CO2 is plant food) there is a catastrophic collapse in the population, along with everything that lives off it.
It seems really obvious to me that low CO2 (i.e., lack of food) killed the dinosaurs. How is it that nobody has proposed this or studied it? But yet they believe an astroid from space did it. LOL. The lack of sophistication in our species is shocking.
(snip)
Moderator Response:[RH] Being there was little of substance in this comment it was an easy decision to snip. If you genuinely wish to contribute to discussions on Skeptical Science you're going to have to substantiate your statements with actual scientific references. If you continue with comments like this one we will have no choice but to rescind posting privileges.
-
nigelj at 11:33 AM on 23 December 2016Russian email hackers keep playing us for fools
Let’s be clear the Clinton and climategate email hacks were theft of people’s private correspondence. The thieves can’t even claim a public interest defence, or whistle blower defence, because there was no wrongdoing found in the documents.
It’s quite absurd to suggest climate scientists should be required to publish their correspondence. I don’t see Trump publishing his own private or business correspondence. Hell would freeze over first before he did that.
People I know still quote climategate as if it proves the IPCC wrong. The trouble is the media publish the headlines about a hack, but the enquiries that found no wrong doing never get published in the media, or only in the fine print at the back somewhere, and so another urban myth gets born.
We have evidence these hacks originated in Russia at high level. Putin is an authoritarian, and a populist, and his popularity has rested on him demonising America, especially liberal America. Trump has used similar tactics to get elected. They talk the same language so no wonder theres an attraction.
I don’t like the thought of Trump attempting to appease Putin any more than the way Clinton antagonised him. Both can only create all sorts of obvious problems. It would be better to maintain a sincere, respectful, but slightly detached approach.
-
swampfoxh at 10:31 AM on 23 December 2016Republicans and Democrats alike want more clean energy
I've been a "member" of skep/sci.com for four, maybe five years, but it never occurred to me that "ya'll" had no exposure to the Yale/George Mason study showing, among other things, that 55% of Republicans believe the facts about climate change and about the same number support the EPA's efforts at greenhouse gas mitigation...so, mea culpa. Here in central Virginia we have "Valley Grassroots" a group of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans (and everything in between) trying to get the word out about climate change while trying to defeat the gas pipeline projects that are just going to make everything worse. We have a three hour power point presentation we present about every three/four months, free, to the public, about the facts of climate change. Some of our material comes from skep/sci so we think the presentation is pretty good. If any of you would like to "teach" this "course" we'll send you the PP presentation and you can do it from your "space". It's mostly copyrighted, but you are welcome to it for free if you pledge not to charge the people who will want to see it. Call me.
Don Henke
434-996-3257
-
Wol at 09:46 AM on 23 December 2016Trump questionnaire recalls dark history of ideology-driven science
denisaf @8: Adaptation to 2° is all very well, but that does nothing to stop the inevitable further rise to 3°,4°,5° and beyond.
Metaphorically it means still kicking the can down the road - but starting a few yards back!
-
denisaf at 08:35 AM on 23 December 2016Trump questionnaire recalls dark history of ideology-driven science
Whilst these decision moves by the Trump's are disturbing, they will not influence the continuing rapid, irreversible climate disruption and ocean pollution, warming and acidification. There is little moderation than can be done to so the emphaisis should be on adapting to the inevitable consequences of sea level rise and more storms, wildfires, floods, droughts and other dleterious events.
-
nigelj at 06:18 AM on 23 December 2016Trump questionnaire recalls dark history of ideology-driven science
Driving by @4, you make the comment that solar panels are 15% efficient etc. Well you can buy systems now that are 20% efficient, and experimental prototypes have been tested with 28% efficiency, and 45% is theoretically possible, which is similar to coal.
phys.org/news/2016-01-efficiency-dual-junction-solar-cell.html
However none of this is an adeqate way of judging solar cells. Its more about the electricity cost per unit of output, and in that respect solar cells are approximately 30 % more costly per unit output than coal, but this is dropping fast, really fast. Wind power is following a roughly similar trend and is already much the same price as coal, and that is with subsidies removed so we are comparing like with like.
Renewable energy is becoming cost competitive, however it doesn't have to be exacly the same price to justify itself. Nobody expects that we can resolve climate change at zero cost. You also need to consider the obvious fact that the costs of coal etc dont include costs inflicted on the environment.
-
andrejones at 05:05 AM on 23 December 2016So what did-in the dinosaurs? A murder mystery…
I'm leaning towards the climate change theory rather than the asteroid impact. Dinosaurs have been found in many different continents and not a single one survived. The planet needed to be literally destroyed by meteors in order to have such a brutal effect and extinguish an entire species spread around the territory1!
-
ubrew12 at 01:32 AM on 23 December 2016Trump questionnaire recalls dark history of ideology-driven science
Article: "An ideologically driven purge?" Maybe, at the bottom. But at the top I think it's driven by money, fossil money. I recommend this article in Climate Crocks last week, talking about 'The Carbon Bubble'. Quote: "the differences between valuations and worth in fossil fuel... assets [is] the “Carbon Bubble.” It is still growing... the thing about bubbles: they always pop... People whose job it is to measure risk in financial markets are.. concerned about the... Carbon Bubble... Because when it bursts, trillions of dollars of imaginary assets will simply vanish in a very short time." By keeping the 'Carbon Bubble' going another decade or so, Tillerson, Putin, and Trump can make billions of dollars.
-
chriskoz at 19:52 PM on 22 December 2016Trump questionnaire recalls dark history of ideology-driven science
The Energy Dept witch hunt was apparently dismissed by president-elect team as “not authorized”. If it was just a joke of an irresponsible member of that team (matching the role model of president-elect himself), then I accept this wise retreat. But in my mind, the presidential team is just showing the same level of competence I've escribed earlier to president-elect. Bucle up folks: in the near future expect more crazy steps like this one, steps typical to a 12y old child rather than an adult holding he highest political office in the world.
-
DrivingBy at 12:47 PM on 22 December 2016Trump questionnaire recalls dark history of ideology-driven science
Welll,,,
Probably, the rest of the world will continue with little change. Perhaps without having the excuse of 'being bullied by the USA', countries who were ambivalent might become more interested in slowing AGW. Yeah, that's pure speculation, but in much of the world now being anti-USA is a popular fashion statement. Heck, it seems to be the position of the the Assuredly Smart People within the USA.
Trump is sending the wrong signals, at least at the moment. But I suspect the net effect will not be large; we're not going back to coal (the stuff's no longer the cheapest), we're not going to remove the scrubbers (and their expense) from existing coal plants, and the other 80% of the world will continue shaving costs from non-fossil energy.
One thing I do find odd: The one solar technology which appears to have an excellent payback time, high efficiency, low complexity and overall EROEI is never mentioned nor hyped. That's solar water pre-heating, which as none of the issues of home solar-to-electic systems. It can be capture most of the incoming solar heat, while a standard PV panel will be about 15% efficient, dropping gradually with time. Those panels are deep black, so they're causing a little bit of surface heating by themselves.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:44 PM on 22 December 2016Trump questionnaire recalls dark history of ideology-driven science
So, the question is, who will, and who will not testify before the "House scientific activities committee"?
-
Tom Curtis at 12:42 PM on 22 December 2016Ocean acidification isn't serious
Further to my post @73, regardless of the theoretical basis, it is pointless for Andrew1776 to argue that increased CO2 levels would be good for corals, for too many real world examples exist proving the contrary. In particular, examples such as the CO2 seeps at Milne Bay:
Note that changes from pH factors typical of those expected in open ocean around 2050 (a) to those expected by the end of the century (b) with BAU do not reduce the coral cover, but massively reduce the diversity of coral species. In particular:
"The field surveys showed that at high compared with low pCO2 sites, hard coral cover was similar (33% versus 31%; Fig. 2a,...). However, the cover of massive Porites corals doubled, whereas the cover of structurally complex corals (with branching, foliose, and tabulate growth forms, that is, excluding massive, submassive and encrusting growth forms) was reduced three fold. The taxonomic richness of hard corals was reduced by 39%. The cover of fleshy non-calcareous macroalgae doubled and seagrass increased eight fold, whereas the cover of crustose coralline algae (important calcareous substrata for coral settlement) and of other red calcareous algae was reduced seven fold. Cover and richness of soft corals and sponge cover were also significantly reduced. The density and taxonomic richness of hard coral juveniles were reduced 2.8- and 2-fold, respectively, and of soft coral juveniles 18- and 12-fold, at the high pCO2 sites (Fig. 2b). Even juvenile densities of massive Porites declined >fourfold at high pCO2, despite the high representation of this taxon in the adult community."
Note that the reduction in juvenile Porites (> fourfold) shows them also to have been adversely effected by the increased pH, but that the lack of competition from other corals allow an overall increase in adult forms.
The sites with pH levels expected in the next century with ongoing BaU (c),
"... were covered by sand or rocks with individual coral colonies, macroalgae or dense seagrass (Fig. 1c, Supplementary Fig. S4). No reef development was found at a pH less than 7.70 (>1,000 ppm CO2), and hence the most intensely venting zones were excluded from the reef assessment."
More detail about the specific effects can be found here.
Similar observations have been made at other CO2 seeps in New Guinea, and the Mariana Islands, among others.
So, the fact that elevated pH due to increased CO2 concentration adversely effects corals and other calcifying sea life is not just a matter of theory, but of direct observation. Observation that Andrew1776 wants to simply ignore.
Moderator Response:[PS] Since comprehensive literature review is a better indicator of state than cherry picking a paper, I note this extensive review recently published here.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:17 PM on 22 December 2016Trump questionnaire recalls dark history of ideology-driven science
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a climatologist?"
-
Tom Curtis at 10:55 AM on 22 December 2016Ocean acidification isn't serious
Andrew1776 @67 cites Rahman and Shingjo (2011) as stating that "... the rate limiting step of coral mineralization is CO2(aq) + H2O CaCO".
With regard to that claim, it should first be noted that what is produced by Andrew1776 is not a valid chemical formula, something somebody with his claimed expertise should know. The correct formulas are:
- CO2(g) ↔ CO2(aq)
- CO2(aq) + H20 ↔ H2CO3
- H2CO3 ↔ H++ HCO3-
- HCO3- ↔ H++ CO32-
- Ca2+ + CO32- → CaCO3↓
Equation (2) represents the rate limiting equation, but that is not the whole story. It is equation (5) that represents the production of calcium carbonate. The crucial compound whose abundance controls the final rate of production of CaCO3 is CO32-. The ratio of the various reaction components in equations (2) through to (4) is determined by, among other things, the acidity of the water. It is shown on this graph (note the logarithmic scale):
You will notice that with the expected decrease in pH by the end of this century wiht BAU, the proportion of CO32- falls by more than 50%. That is just the ratio to the other compounds, of course, and as Andrew1776 is keen to point out, CO2(aq) will rise, and the relative amount of the other compounds with it. In fact, with business as usual, it will approximately double:
The net effect is that the absolute quantity of CO32- will fall, and with it the rate of calcification. That is in addition to any direct adverse effects from acidification.
-
nigelj at 09:10 AM on 22 December 2016Trump questionnaire recalls dark history of ideology-driven science
The terrible ideologically driven science, intimidation, and authoritarianism you document is very real. Elements of this are effectively a form of subtle state sanctioned censorship, and totally counter to the American constitutional spirit of free speech.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 08:40 AM on 22 December 2016Ocean acidification isn't serious
I find that it makes as much sense to say that CO2 is plant food than to say that O2 is people food. It is intellectually dishonest and physiologically inaccurate.
-
nigelj at 08:04 AM on 22 December 2016This is not normal – climate researchers take to the streets to protect science
Daniel Mocnsy @14, I have been an atheist since age of about 10. I could never take the bible seriously, at face value, given the supernatural claims and large number of inconsistencies, but I do think it has some worthwhile ethical teachings in the New Testament. I agree with your views on how religion influences some peoples thinking.
I hope this website would permit a few polite comments on religion and politics on topics that relate to this, as some ocassionally do. Obviously its not appropriate on articles that discuss purely climate research issues.
There is a big intersection of religion and climate change, but its complex. The views of the bible belt differ considerably from the new Catholic Pope. But its worth discussing, and simply cannot be avoided.
Moderator Response:[PS] I think there are more appropriate sites for such a discussion. This site is dedicated to the science of climate change.
-
nigelj at 07:33 AM on 22 December 2016Republicans and Democrats alike want more clean energy
Haze @4, I dont think young people are automatically naive and gullible. In fact most teenagers go through a rebellious stage where they question all forms of so called conventional wisdom, and look at a wide variety of sources of information.
However young people do get some basic information at school on the greenhouse effect, which is established science, and can probaly see that this science is settled and compelling.
Their parents never had that level of education on climate change. Their parents may also get more narrow in their world view and entrenched into partisan political leanings, and the older people get the harder it is to escape these, as people get set in their ways.
I didn't say builders are a subclass. But its a simple fact their education levels will not as high as a doctor for example. Trump has probably got used to speaking their language.
I deal in facts and honest observations. I used to be involved in the building industry for a couple of years at a very high professional level, and have a high regard for builders, and if anything some of them are under paid, although its probably small farmers and lower skilled occupations hurting most.
Yes I would agree the "elite" have got some things wrong, with maybe excessive immigration numbers, and blue collar workers being left behind during the period of globalisation. I think there's legitimate blame on both Republicans and Democrats in that regard.
This doesn't mean globalisation is wrong or should be reversed, it means certain things must be rectified, mitigated, and acknowledged by everyone. But in case you havent noticed, Trump is part of the very elite he criticises. He has made a lot of angry noises, maybe with some justification, but in my view his policies wont help his target audience, and need changing. People will eventually wake up to this.
But like I said Trump is intelligent, and may see business sense in renewable energy, and presumably he wont want China to get ahead of America on this.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:31 AM on 22 December 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #51
Turns out that snow has fallen in (a location in) the Sahara for the first time in 37 years. You were probably deafened by the denier chorus of "so much for global warming". What the deniers show is only how poor is their fact checking. In this instance, the snow fell at the Algerian town of Ain Sefra, a full kilometer above sea level in the Atlas Mountains. That high altitude results in low winter temperatures, with an average December range from 0.9 - 12.9 C, and a record minimum of -10.2 C. So the deniers are flaberghasted that snow should fall at a location that often experiences sub zero temperatures.
-
bozzza at 20:45 PM on 21 December 2016Why Coal Is Not Our Future
@ 19,
I would simply ask why someone would bother doing that. Are you trying to say something about the methods of applied science versus the methods of mixed markets?
-
Haze at 17:26 PM on 21 December 2016Republicans and Democrats alike want more clean energy
"A deeper dive into the results reveals that American voters are more knowledgeable about energy and the energy economy than is the president elect."
However,the American voters are now not in control of the climate change policies of the US nor of its economy. Donald Trump, whether you like it or not, is. Perhaps it is not the smartest approach to antagonise the President-elect.
NigelJ@3 "I'm absolutely sure I have seen decent quality public polling finding young people are generally less sceptical about climate change presumably due to the education they get.'
Perhaps young people are more naive and gullible than those somewhat older.
"Trump's grammar isn't too good and he is very plainly spoken. I wonder if this is deliberate, to connect with blue collar workers. Remember he is a property developer, so deals a lot with builders".
It is this elitism such as this that has been "blamed" for both the election of Trump and Brexit. Personally I consider it has no place here or anywhere else. Are builders some sub-class?
-
Eclectic at 16:27 PM on 21 December 2016Ocean acidification isn't serious
Andrew1776 @70 and prior posts (including recently in other threads) ,
you fail to recognize or acknowledge that land-based and sea-based life forms have diverged in their evolution for 100's of millions of years (regarding body chemistry). In your passionate desire for marine creatures to make a problem-free transition to a low pH (or high phlogiston) condition in an eye-blink of evolutionary time, you are (it seems) indulging in wishful thinking of the most unrealistic kind.
In short, your revolutionary and idiosyncratic idea of an unproblematic abrupt change in physiological conditions , is an idea which comes several hundred million years too late.
Please remember that we a playing for high stakes - and the rapid "unnatural" acidification is a matter involving the entire planetary ocean : not a micro-experiment on a saline gallon or two in a kitchen sink. The high stakes require an intelligent risk-management approach to the situation, don't you agree?
An approach based on extensive biological knowledge, rather than on poorly-informed caprice.
-
Eclectic at 15:35 PM on 21 December 2016This is not normal – climate researchers take to the streets to protect science
Daniel @16 , while superficially your suggestion of free e-books sounds reasonable (in the battle against ignorance and misinformation), nevertheless your basic premise is flawed.
To a very large degree, those who nowadays are uninformed about climate change and climate science, are so because they are uninterested in the subject or because their preference is to be educated passively (via mainstream media) rather than by their own studious efforts. Sure, there will be some exceptions to this - but far too few to justify a complete sacrifice by authors. Likewise, far too few to have a significant effect on the course of events (If that was your aim in properly educating them).
The other category of the uninformed/misinformed, is those who are hostile to the idea of recognizing the plain and obvious facts about Global Warming. Few, if any, of them will wish to read free books which they feel (rightly!) are almost certain to fail to confirm the deniers' prejudices. They actively seek disinformation, for the purpose of their own bias confirmation. They de-select and reject real scientific facts and opinions. Even the very few who would read a free science-based book, will read one while actively cherry-picking / filtering out / and distorting the contents. So no enlightenment to be gained there!
No, I don't think it is fair to blame even a part of today's "desperate times" on the authors' sin of avarice !
-
Daniel Mocsny at 12:44 PM on 21 December 2016This is not normal – climate researchers take to the streets to protect science
Desperate times call for desperate measures, and for scientists, these are desperate measures.
How about this for a desperate measure: can the world's writers of science-based popular works please stop copywriting your books and reserving all rights? That is, could y'all start publishing under Open Access licenses?
Why this matters: we are in desperate times because the vast majority of humans have not read many science-based books about climate change. And they are not likely to read very much if they have to pay $20 to $50 a pop for books they don't agree with. A lack of reading is why the typical climate science denier continues to regurgitate the same debunked myths over and over. Nobody who has read enough climate science to be reasonably informed (say, 10 or 20 books at minimum) would remain stuck on opening denier gambits that have long been countered.
There is a powerful force that can at least partly offset the propaganda advantages of corporatized religion and politics: social recommendation. Individuals have considerable influence over the behavior of their friends and social contacts (especially in the real world). I know people who are marinating in politically or religiously-motived anti-science disinformation. I might have some ability to influence them to read things they would otherwise probably never consider reading. But given that they have zero motivation to have their minds changed, the barrier must be as low as possible.
One way to lower the barrier is by publishing freely. If I could freely and legally share ebooks with them, that would eliminate the sticking points of either having to pay for the books up front, or asking them to spend the time and effort to visit a library. (I've found something similar with persuading some of my neighbors to start composting their yard waste and sometimes even their kitchen scraps: if I obtain and help set up the compost bin for them, personally tutor them on how to do everything, give them starter compost, follow up to answer their questions, guarantee their success, and so on, then people who would otherwise never take up composting on their own initiative can adopt the behavior and sometimes even become enthusiastic. For people who are not already interested enough in something to have done it on their own, you have to identify and eliminate every possible sticking point, and give them an in-person push.)
Charging money for books limits the potential audience to people who already recognize the value of the books before they have read them. Non-free books are great tools for preaching to the choir (in this case, the people already convinced that climate change is real, human-caused, and a serious problem). But if you want to change the world, you have to reach and change minds who are at best indifferent and at worst hostile. That requires making the least possible demands on them up front - and asking them to read a book is already demanding enough.
There is a lot of freely-available content about climate change online (such as on this site, on Wikipedia, etc.). But reading books is still vital for becoming informed. The free online content tends to be fragmented, since a basic principle of Web design is appealing to the short attention span of the Web user. This makes it hard for even a motivated Web user to cobble together enough reading material to rival the comprehensive topical coverage of a book author. Indeed, for many of the useful snippets I've found online, I only knew to search for them after I read about the topics in books.
It's nice to have protests against Donald Trump's war against science - we'll be doing a lot of that over the next four or eight years, but the real battleground is the gray matter between billions of pairs of ears. Think of the cognitive distance we need to cover in units of person-book-reads. If we want to solve climate change, we need billions of people to read dozens of books each. We are literally (no pun intended) tens of billions of book-reads away from where we need to be, and we won't get there by imposing a tax on every one of those book-reads up front.
I understand the desire or perhaps even the need for book authors to get paid. Hey, who doesn't like money? But as the authors of Against Intellectual Monopoly (itself a free book) explain, there are lots of ways to get paid without metering access to information. (The Googles and Facebooks of the world are raking in billions without charging for their content up front.)
We have the same problem with most climate change documentary films and television programs. Virtually all of them are copyrighted with all rights reserved, so there's no legal way to aggregate and redistribute them for repeated viewing. Neither can we conveniently cite them in response to online debates, for example when a science denier makes an argument that a documentary visually rebuts. No third party can build encyclopedic, topically indexed access to all that valuable content while it remains encumbered by intellectual property rights.
When our customary way of doing things (in this case, business as usual) gets in the way of our very survival, then our customs need to change. Let's don't make the same mistake as the doomed British army at the Battle of Isandlwana, when the quartermasters were fatally slow in issuing out ammunition to the soldiers on the line being overrun by Zulu warriors, because they insisted on proper procedure. Science is similarly in danger of being overrun by a technologically inferior force, because once again our quartermasters insist on metering the vital resource.
Prev 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 Next
