7 ms·

The Climate Change Climate Change: The number of skeptics is swelling

12 points by zurla 17y ago

noodle 17y ago
i don't know that any news corp outlet has reported anything to support the notion of climate change. and to be clear, i'm not commenting on the issue itself, just the unbalanced coverage from this specific source.
- iron_ball 17y ago
  Some would argue that "facts" should be argued on their own merits, regardless of source. But spin and interpretation are incredibly important, and a partial source cannot be taken as a provider of impartial facts.
evolve2k 17y ago
This article is useless and skewed. Im from Australia and the senator in question is a known skeptic who benefits from promoting those interests who would have most to loose in a carbon constrained economy. "Skeptics" continue to benefit from saying oh its not happening. A senator taking a (likley) free trip to the US for a conference against climate change, big news! You might find this more informative: http://wakeupfreakout.org/film/tipping.html http://wakeupfreakout.org/film/tipping.html At least you have some facts to check. The wsj article is mere hyperbole. For less bias in the news you read check out newscred.com (no affiliation).
- alexgartrell 17y ago
  From the article: "The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02." I'm all for cleaning up emissions, but I'm for it because I like the atmosphere to be clean. Fear tactics are what's been driving "green-[A-Za-z]" for a long time and I think it's important to reexamine and do it for the right reasons.
  - Devilboy 17y ago
    'Since 2001' is just 8 years. Climatologists will generally agree that 30 years is the minimum time to consider when talking about global climate change, because of the natural rhythms and fluctuations year to year. Saying that the last 8 years disproves climate change is like saying that last week was warmer than the week before and therefore we're heading into summer and not into winter. However, there's probably not too much harm being done in waiting another 10 years before we take this more seriously. 10 years from now if we're having record heatwaves again everywhere, I expect most skeptics will start coming around.
  - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
    and temperature over the short term is a bad reason to change opinions. skepticism SHOULD be growing because the climate change advocates are using cherry picked statistics and bullying.
- TriinT 17y ago
  Some remarks: 1) the fact that the senator in question benefits from denying global warming does not mean that the global warming pseudo-science is true. Politicians can never be trusted. Period. And you seem to have fallen under the spell of the ad hominem fallacy. 2) Not all skeptics are the same. My skepticism stems from the fact that I do have a solid education in the sciences (unlike the average citizen), not from the fact that I stand to gain from denying global warming. 3) Last but not least: "most to loose" should be "most to lose". Generally speaking, people with a proper sense of spelling are taken more seriously than those who lack it. Maybe I am being pedantic, but if I were reading your CV and you made spelling errors like this, I would think twice before hiring you. This is an observation, not an attack.
Alex3917 17y ago
Not only is this a dupe, it's a dupe from this morning. Today the house passed the most important environmental bill in the nation's history, and that gets zero upvotes in favor of this. Really?
mattmaroon 17y ago
Why do these global warming skeptic articles keep popping up here? Global warming is certainly OT, and skeptics' theories are not really any more interesting than any other conspiracy theories.
- Alex3917 17y ago
  Intellectually dishonest conspiracy theories at that. As much as some people here hate the 9-11 truthers, at least the mainstream ones aren't making up facts or using quotes out of context.
- TriinT 17y ago
  Freeman Dyson is a skeptic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k69HUuyI5Mk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k69HUuyI5Mk Do you have the audacity to call him a conspiracy theorist? He's only one of the greatest scientists of the 20th Century. What kind of track record do you have to belittle Dyson? Seriously. The point I am trying to make: not at skeptics are born equal. Some are ignorant fools. But others are well-educated and well-trained in the Natural Sciences. Your simplistic view that all skeptics are conspiracy theorists is ideology. You looked at no data. You did not check the assumptions. You did not create any of the climate computer models. You probably did not read any papers on the topic. So, your beliefs stem from where exactly!? This is not an attack. It is an honest question. BTW, they don't call it Global Warming anymore. It's now called Climate Change. You see, since the climate is a dynamical system that is continuously changing, the name "Climate Change" per se has absolutely zero information.
  - mighty 17y ago
    > BTW, they don't call it Global Warming anymore. It's now called Climate Change. You see, since the climate is a dynamical system that is continuously changing, the name "Climate Change" per se has absolutely zero information. It only has zero information if you give it a massively uncharitable and ignorant reading. A climate per se describes a long term pattern of weather in a region. If that pattern changes, by definition, the climate has changed. Hence, "climate change". Systems, or "dynamical systems" (whatever that means), are privy to two levels of change: one occurs within the system, the other defines the system. In other words, a system's state may change to another state, or the system may change into another system. Got it?
TriinT 17y ago
It does not matter that the number of skeptics is swelling. It would not matter either if the number of warmists were swelling. Science is about observation, experimentation. Science is not about consensus. The truth does not care about what the ignorant masses think. It does not matter either if the number of skeptic scientists is swelling. What matters is the opinion of the scientists who have studied the global climate. The opinion of the experts is the only one that matters. And since the experts may be wrong, their opinion should be viewed as an opinion, not as an absolute truth. Moreover, I want to stress something important. This is not a game of "us versus them". The truth does not care for such petty human weaknesses. The climate is an extremely difficult problem, and anyone who's too sure of his / her views is probably not a real expert. And scientists should have the freedom to speak what they think, without fearing being attacked by the gullible masses. I finish with a quote by Robert Oppenheimer: "There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any asssertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors."

12 points by zurla 17y ago

i don't know that any news corp outlet has reported anything to support the notion of climate change. and to be clear, i'm not commenting on the issue itself, just the unbalanced coverage from this specific source.

iron_ball 17y ago
Some would argue that "facts" should be argued on their own merits, regardless of source. But spin and interpretation are incredibly important, and a partial source cannot be taken as a provider of impartial facts.

evolve2k 17y ago

This article is useless and skewed. Im from Australia and the senator in question is a known skeptic who benefits from promoting those interests who would have most to loose in a carbon constrained economy. "Skeptics" continue to benefit from saying oh its not happening. A senator taking a (likley) free trip to the US for a conference against climate change, big news! You might find this more informative: http://wakeupfreakout.org/film/tipping.html http://wakeupfreakout.org/film/tipping.html At least you have some facts to check. The wsj article is mere hyperbole. For less bias in the news you read check out newscred.com (no affiliation).

alexgartrell 17y ago
From the article: "The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02." I'm all for cleaning up emissions, but I'm for it because I like the atmosphere to be clean. Fear tactics are what's been driving "green-[A-Za-z]" for a long time and I think it's important to reexamine and do it for the right reasons.
- Devilboy 17y ago
  'Since 2001' is just 8 years. Climatologists will generally agree that 30 years is the minimum time to consider when talking about global climate change, because of the natural rhythms and fluctuations year to year. Saying that the last 8 years disproves climate change is like saying that last week was warmer than the week before and therefore we're heading into summer and not into winter. However, there's probably not too much harm being done in waiting another 10 years before we take this more seriously. 10 years from now if we're having record heatwaves again everywhere, I expect most skeptics will start coming around.
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  and temperature over the short term is a bad reason to change opinions. skepticism SHOULD be growing because the climate change advocates are using cherry picked statistics and bullying.
TriinT 17y ago
Some remarks: 1) the fact that the senator in question benefits from denying global warming does not mean that the global warming pseudo-science is true. Politicians can never be trusted. Period. And you seem to have fallen under the spell of the ad hominem fallacy. 2) Not all skeptics are the same. My skepticism stems from the fact that I do have a solid education in the sciences (unlike the average citizen), not from the fact that I stand to gain from denying global warming. 3) Last but not least: "most to loose" should be "most to lose". Generally speaking, people with a proper sense of spelling are taken more seriously than those who lack it. Maybe I am being pedantic, but if I were reading your CV and you made spelling errors like this, I would think twice before hiring you. This is an observation, not an attack.

Alex3917 17y ago

Not only is this a dupe, it's a dupe from this morning. Today the house passed the most important environmental bill in the nation's history, and that gets zero upvotes in favor of this. Really?

mattmaroon 17y ago

Why do these global warming skeptic articles keep popping up here? Global warming is certainly OT, and skeptics' theories are not really any more interesting than any other conspiracy theories.

Alex3917 17y ago
Intellectually dishonest conspiracy theories at that. As much as some people here hate the 9-11 truthers, at least the mainstream ones aren't making up facts or using quotes out of context.
TriinT 17y ago
Freeman Dyson is a skeptic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k69HUuyI5Mk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k69HUuyI5Mk Do you have the audacity to call him a conspiracy theorist? He's only one of the greatest scientists of the 20th Century. What kind of track record do you have to belittle Dyson? Seriously. The point I am trying to make: not at skeptics are born equal. Some are ignorant fools. But others are well-educated and well-trained in the Natural Sciences. Your simplistic view that all skeptics are conspiracy theorists is ideology. You looked at no data. You did not check the assumptions. You did not create any of the climate computer models. You probably did not read any papers on the topic. So, your beliefs stem from where exactly!? This is not an attack. It is an honest question. BTW, they don't call it Global Warming anymore. It's now called Climate Change. You see, since the climate is a dynamical system that is continuously changing, the name "Climate Change" per se has absolutely zero information.
- mighty 17y ago
  > BTW, they don't call it Global Warming anymore. It's now called Climate Change. You see, since the climate is a dynamical system that is continuously changing, the name "Climate Change" per se has absolutely zero information. It only has zero information if you give it a massively uncharitable and ignorant reading. A climate per se describes a long term pattern of weather in a region. If that pattern changes, by definition, the climate has changed. Hence, "climate change". Systems, or "dynamical systems" (whatever that means), are privy to two levels of change: one occurs within the system, the other defines the system. In other words, a system's state may change to another state, or the system may change into another system. Got it?

TriinT 17y ago

It does not matter that the number of skeptics is swelling. It would not matter either if the number of warmists were swelling. Science is about observation, experimentation. Science is not about consensus. The truth does not care about what the ignorant masses think. It does not matter either if the number of skeptic scientists is swelling. What matters is the opinion of the scientists who have studied the global climate. The opinion of the experts is the only one that matters. And since the experts may be wrong, their opinion should be viewed as an opinion, not as an absolute truth. Moreover, I want to stress something important. This is not a game of "us versus them". The truth does not care for such petty human weaknesses. The climate is an extremely difficult problem, and anyone who's too sure of his / her views is probably not a real expert. And scientists should have the freedom to speak what they think, without fearing being attacked by the gullible masses. I finish with a quote by Robert Oppenheimer: "There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any asssertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors."