Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by TheChatch, Apr 25, 2015.
The least shocking thing i have read so far today.
"Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations," wrote Lewis in a blog post published on climate scientist Judith Curry's Climate Etc.website.
After correcting the math error, Lewis found that the paper's rate of oceanic warming "is about average compared with the other estimates they showed, and below the average for 1993–2016."
Lewis's conclusion was replicated and supported by University of Colorado professor, Roger Pike, Jr., who tweeted his work.
Lol @ zero hedge. Also, can you tell me anything about Roger Pike, Jr. Doesn't seem to be in the UC directory.
Also the guy that Roger Pike Jr. cited, is so baseless in basic math and statistics that Scientific America felt the need to publish an article three years ago entitled "how to misinterpret climate change research" including the following "Soon after, he took the unusual step, for a climate scientist, of issuing a press release to correct the misconceptions. Lewis had used an extremely rudimentary, some would even say flawed, climate model to derive his estimates, Stevens said."
Climate Science = Pseudo Science
What is this, like the 10th time someone has been caught fudging data?
Are you talking about Lewis or "Pike"
He doesnt have a clue what he's talking about, as per usual
he didn't write the article guys, he didn't fudge the data..don't be mad at him
Nice to have another person that can read in this thread.
Didn't know where else to put it but this is fucking badass.
No it's a real science: https://www.colorado.edu/atoc/
CU has one of the best programs for it. Look through those faculty profiles...that seem made up to you?
Oh, wow. Total shocker. "peer reviewed" ..... reviewed by a bunch of like minded morons. This is why no one believes in this "science"
"Co-author Ralph Keeling, climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, took full blame and thanked Lewis for alerting him to the mistake."
“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.”
"However, the conclusion came under scrutiny after mathematician Nic Lewis, a critic of the scientific consensus around human-induced warming, posted a critique of the paper on the blog of Judith Curry, another well-known critic.
“The findings of the ... paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media,” Lewis wrote. “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”
God dammit, one error in a peer-reviewed paper and now Rules has completely debunked all of climate science.
I don't know about you, but when it comes to a choice between a bunch of fancy people with "PhDs" and tmbrules/FSUDan, I'm gonna believe the latter. You'd have to be a fool not to see it that way!
Monsanto will make sure that robot never hits the market.
Let's not use one event to argue in favor or against climate change/global warming. It's disengenuous.
It's fucking mid-November, weird shit happens in transition seasons.
What would you know about the weather guy
great NYT article
I hope he tweeted that while holding a snowball.
what's the joke
All medicine is fake!
Thanks Dan. Your support means a lot. I always wanted a hype man.
doesn't he realize there are fires in California BECAUSE of global warming?!?
So basically everywhere else in the world except the northeast corner of the western hemisphere
He's a 70 year old billionaire. It should have been self evident but he doesn't care about anyone's problems except his own.
I'm sure you've given much more to charity
I'm sure he's welched on far fewer charities
This is incredibly cringeworthy.
Climate change will have dire consequences for US, federal report concludes
(CNN)A new US government report delivers a dire warning about climate change and its devastating impacts on the health and economy of the country.
The federally mandated study was released by the Trump administration on Friday, at a time when many Americans are on a long holiday weekend, distracted by family and shopping
Coming from the US Global Change Research Program, a team of 13 federal agencies, theFourth National Climate Assessment was put together with the help of 1,000 people, including 300 leading scientists.
It's the second of two volumes. The first, released in November 2017, concluded that there is "no convincing alternative explanation" for the changing climate other than "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases."
The report's findings run counter to President Donald Trump's consistent message that climate change is a hoax.
On Wednesday, Trump tweeted, "Whatever happened to Global Warming?" as some Americans faced the coldest Thanksgiving in over a century.
But the science explained in these and other federal government reports is clear: Climate change is not disproved by the extreme weather of one day or a week; it's demonstrated by long-term trends. Humans are living with the warmest temperatures in modern history. Even if the best-case scenario were to happen and greenhouse gas emissions were to drop to nothing, the world is on track to warm 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit.
As of now, not a single G20 country is meeting climate targets, research shows.
The costs of climate change could reach hundreds of billions of dollars annually, according to the report. The Southeast alone will probably lose over a half a billion labor hours by 2100 due to extreme heat.
Farmers will face extremely tough times. The quality and quantity of their crops will decline across the country due to higher temperatures, drought and flooding. In parts of the Midwest, farms will be able to produce less than 75% of the corn they produce today, and the southern part of the region could lose more than 25% of its soybean yield.
Heat stress could cause average dairy production to fall between 0.60% and 1.35% over the next 12 years -- having already cost the industry $1.2 billion from heat stress in 2010.
When it comes to shellfish there will be a $230 million loss by the end of the century due to ocean acidification, which is already killing off shellfish and corals. Red tides, or algae bloom that deplete oxygen in the water and can kill sea life -- like those that triggered a state of emergency in Florida in August -- will become more frequent.
Impacts on our health
Higher temperatures will also kill more people, the report says. The Midwest, which is predictedto have the largest increase in extreme temperature, alone will see an additional. 2,000 premature deaths per year by 2090.
There will be more mosquito- and tickborne diseases like Zika, dengue and chikungunya. West Nile cases are expected to more than double by 2050 due to increasing temperatures.
Expect asthma and allergies to be worse due to climate change.
No one's health is immune from climate change, the report concludes. People will be exposed to more foodborne and waterborne diseases. Particularly vulnerable to higher temperatures in the summer, children, the elderly, the poor and communities of color will be at a much greater risk for illness and death.
Heat and flooding
Wildfire seasons -- already longer and more destructive than before -- could burn up to six times more forest area annually by 2050 in parts of the United States.
Dependable and safe water for the Hawaii, the Caribbean and others are threatened by these rising temperatures.
Along the US coasts, public infrastructure and $1 trillion in national wealth held in real estate are threatened by rising sea levels, flooding and storm surges.
Energy systems will be taxed, meaning more blackouts and power failures, and the potential loss in some sectors could reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year by the end of the century, the report said.
Sea levels have already gone up 7 to 8 inches since 1900. Almost half that rise has been since 1993, a rate of rise greater than during any century in the past 2,800 years. Some countries are already seeing land underwater.
What can be done
The report was created to inform policy-makers and makes no specific recommendations on how to remedy the problem. However, it suggests that if the United States immediately reduced its fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions, it could save thousands of lives and generate billions of dollars in benefits for the country.
The Defense Department is trying to understand what risk climate change poses to security. But the Trump administration has signaled that the country will pull out of international initiatives like the Paris climate accord, aimed at lowering global temperatures, claiming that these treaties have been unfair for the US economy.
A report from the UN in October urged all governments to take "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society" to avoid disaster from climate change. That report predicted that the Earth will reach the crucial threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030. It also suggested the world faces a risk of extreme drought, wildfires, floods and food shortages for hundreds of millions of people.
Time for action
Reactions to the new report have been strong across the scientific community.
"If we're going to run this country like a business, it's time to address climate as the threat multiplier we know it is before more lives are lost," said Robert Bullard, an environmental scientistat Texas Southern University.
"In Houston, communities of color have endured back to back major weather events without the acknowledgment from Washington that climate change is the cause. We've known for years that it's true and it's important to our organizing and our local policy efforts that information like this is not only considered, but believed and acted upon."
Scientists who have been raising the alarm about the negative consequences of climate change for years welcomed the findings.
Get CNN Health's weekly newsletter
Sign up here to get The Results Are In with Dr. Sanjay Gupta every Tuesday from the CNN Health team.
"The findings in the Trump administration's NCA report show how the health and daily lives of Americans are becoming more and more interrupted because of climate change," said Beverly Wright, founding director of the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice and a professor at Dillard University. "We challenge the administration to finally begin using this information to rebuild and strengthen the communities in the direct path of the atrocities wrought by the fossil fuel industry and decades of poor policies that have neglected our concerns. The science is undeniable, let's fix it."
Gonna be a huge issue for 2029, especially with the influx of younger voters
Knowledge, Ignorance and Climate Change
Philosophers have been talking about skepticism for a long time. Some of those insights can shed light on our public discourse regarding climate change.
By N. Ángel Pinillos
Dr. Pinillos is a professor of philosophy at Arizona State University.
Nov. 26, 2018
Pump jacks at work bringing up oil in Campbell County, Wy. Climate change skeptics focus on uncertainty even in the face of abundant evidence, N. Ángel Pinillos writes.CreditCreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
No matter how smart or educated you are, what you don’t know far surpasses anything you may know. Socrates taught us the virtue of recognizing our limitations. Wisdom, he said, requires possessing a type of humility manifested in an awareness of one’s own ignorance. Since then, the value of being aware of our ignorance has been a recurring theme in Western thought: René Descartes said it’s necessary to doubt all things to build a solid foundation for science; and Ludwig Wittgenstein, reflecting on the limits of language, said that “the difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know.”
Awareness of ignorance appears to be common in politics as well. In a recent “60 Minutes” interview, President Trump said of global warming, “I don’t know that it’s man-made.” The same sentiment was echoed by Larry Kudlow, the director of the National Economic Council. Perhaps Trump and Kudlow, confident in their ignorance on these important issues, are simply expressing philosophical humility and wisdom. Or perhaps not.
Sometimes, when it appears that someone is expressing doubt, what he is really doing is recommending a course of action. For example, if I tell you that I don’t know whether there is milk in the fridge, I’m not exhibiting philosophical wisdom — I’m simply recommending that you check the fridge before you go shopping. From this perspective, what Trump is doing is telling us that governmental decisions should not assume that global warming is caused by humans.
According to NASA, at least 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists think that “climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely caused by human activities.” Americans overwhelmingly agree that the federal government needs to take significant action. In a recent poll conducted by Stanford University, ABC News and Resources for the Future, 61 percent of those surveyed said that the federal government should take a great deal or a lot of action to curb global warming. And an additional 19 percent believe that the government should take moderate action.
As a philosopher, I have nothing to add to the scientific evidence of global warming, but I can tell you how it’s possible to get ourselves to sincerely doubt things, despite abundant evidence to the contrary. I also have suggestions about how to fix this.
To understand how it’s possible to doubt something despite evidence to the contrary, try some thought experiments. Suppose you observe a shopper at the convenience store buying a lottery ticket. You are aware that the probability that he will lose the lottery is astronomically high, typically above 99.99 percent, but it’s hard to get yourself to sincerely say you know this person will lose the lottery. Now imagine your doctor screens you for a disease, and the test comes out negative. But consider the possibility that this result is one of those rare “false negative” cases. Do you really know the result of this particular test is not a false negative?
Informed opinions on today’s vital issues.
Subscribe to The Times
These scenarios suggest that it’s possible to feel as though you don’t know something even when possessing enormous evidence in its favor. Philosophers call scenarios like these “skeptical pressure” cases, and they arise in mundane, boring cases that have nothing to do with politics or what one wants to be true. In general, a skeptical pressure case is a thought experiment in which the protagonist has good evidence for something that he or she believes, but the reader is reminded that the protagonist could have made a mistake. If the story is set up in the right way, the reader will be tempted to think that the protagonist’s belief isn’t genuine knowledge.
When presented with these thought experiments, some philosophy students conclude that what these examples show is that knowledge requires full-blown certainty. In these skeptical pressure cases, the evidence is overwhelming, but not 100 percent. It’s an attractive idea, but it doesn’t sit well with the fact that we ordinarily say we know lots of things with much lower probability. For example, I know I will be grading student papers this weekend. Although the chance of this happening is high, it is not anything close to 100 percent, since there is always the chance I’ll get sick, or that something more important will come up. In fact, the chance of getting sick and not grading is much higher than the chance of winning the lottery. So how could it be that I know I will be grading and not know that the shopper at the convenience store will lose the lottery?
Philosophers have been studying skeptical pressure intensely for the past 50 years. Although there is no consensus about how it arises, a promising idea defended by the philosopher David Lewis is that skeptical pressure cases often involve focusing on the possibility of error. Once we start worrying and ruminating about this possibility, no matter how far-fetched, something in our brains causes us to doubt. The philosopher Jennifer Nagel aptly calls this type of effect “epistemic anxiety.”
In my own work, I have speculated that an extreme version of this phenomenon is operative in obsessive compulsive disorder, a condition that affects millions of Americans. In many cases of O.C.D., patients are paralyzed with doubt about some fact — against all evidence. For example, a patient might doubt whether she turned off her stove despite having just checked multiple times. As with skeptical pressure cases, the focus on the possibility that one might be wrong plays a central role in the phenomenon.
Let’s return to climate change skepticism. According to social psychology, climate change deniers tend to espouse conservative views, which suggests that party ideology is partly responsible for these attitudes. I think that we should also think about the philosophical nature of skeptical reactions, an apolitical phenomenon.
The standard response by climate skeptics is a lot like our reaction to skeptical pressure cases. Climate skeptics understand that 97 percent of scientists disagree with them, but they focus on the very tiny fraction of holdouts. As in the lottery case, this focus might be enough to sustain their skepticism. We have seen this pattern before. Anti-vaccine proponents, for example, aware that medical professionals disagree with their position, focus on any bit of fringe research that might say otherwise.
Skeptical allure can be gripping. Piling on more evidence does not typically shake you out of it, just as making it even more probable that you will lose the lottery does not all of a sudden make you feel like you know your ticket is a loser.
One way to counter the effects of skepticism is to stop talking about “knowledge” and switch to talking about probabilities. Instead of saying that you don’t know some claim, try to estimate the probability that it is true. As hedge fund managers, economists, policy researchers, doctors and bookmakers have long been aware, the way to make decisions while managing risk is through probabilities. Once we switch to this perspective, claims to “not know,” like those made by Trump, lose their force and we are pushed to think more carefully about the existing data and engage in cost-benefit analyses.
Interestingly, people in the grips of skepticism are often still willing to accept the objective probabilities. Think about the lottery case again. Although you find it hard to say you know the shopper will lose the lottery, you readily agree that it is still very probable that he will lose. What this suggests is that even climate skeptics could budge on their esteemed likelihood of climate change without renouncing their initial skepticism. It’s easy to say you don’t know, but it’s harder to commit to an actual low probability estimate in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.
Socrates was correct that awareness of one’s ignorance is virtuous, but philosophers have subsequently uncovered many pitfalls associated with claims of ignorance. An appreciation of these issues can help elevate public discourse on important topics, including the future of our planet.
N. Ángel Pinillos is a professor of philosophy in the School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies at Arizona State University.
Fuck that, MORE TUBA
So it’s really only politicians that don’t believe in it?
Politicians will believe in anything if the price is right.
No mention of the riots in Paris over high gas taxes due to climate change legislation?
Even the socialists have their breaking point
Gas ~$8/ gallon in Europe compared to $2.15 here
Finally got my Dad to admit there is global warming/climate change, and also that humans are accelerating the process.
He's almost adorable when he thinks he's making a point.
tmbrules do you have insurance?
According to GlobalPetrolPrices.com the national average in France is $6.17 and is $2.80 in the US.
But hey, if cheap gas prices are your favorite indicator you can get a gallon of gas in Venezuela for $.04
I decline insurance every time I’m offered it at the register.