That's increasingly my view If people don't get climate change there is little doubt they will be rational on other issues
That Venn diagram is a circle. Of course, that approach inevitably leads to a catastrophe environment unseen since the 14th Century.
As it should be. Nobody every got smarter by talking with fools, except for Shakespeare characters. But his fools only play the role; underneath the nonsense, they know full well that climate change is real. Whereas our real-life fools ... not so much.
@bigredfutbol , @JohnR, apply the part in burgundy to any field or issue: https://features.weather.com/major-national-climate-report-came-deniers-got-tv/ Since climate change is real, devastating and caused by humans, which at least 97 percent of climate scientists and the scientific counsel of every nation in the world agrees, and it can be mitigated as the report suggests, then should news networks be giving climate deniers a megaphone? “Absolutely not,” Dr. Lauren Feldman, associate professor of journalism and media studies at Rutgers, told The Weather Channel Digital. “You know, it’s incredibly irresponsible. There is a lot of research that shows that simply having a single individual on a show like this, questioning the veracity of climate change, can sow doubt and uncertainty in the audience. And so by bringing on climate science deniers, it gives the impression that there is a debate around the science of climate change when there is not such a debate. It spreads misinformation and ultimately thwarts discussion about the actions that we could actually take to do something about climate change.” Television has the potential to outplay even social media for audiences’ attention and attitude toward climate issues, “because of its visual immediacy and authoritative presentation,” Feldman wrote in her 2016 paper, Effects of TV and Cable News Viewing on Climate Change Opinion, Knowledge, and Behavior. “Those skeptical of climate change have been able to exploit journalists’ norms of balance and objectivity to amplify their voices in television coverage of climate change.” Televising an artificial debate over settled science is a classic example of the magnified minority tactic in climate disinformation campaigns. Placing a climate contrarian beside a scientist is effectively shrinking the 97 percent consensus on the issue to a 50 percent one — two people arguing opposing sides. Placing a climate contrarian on air without any scientific counterpoint is, obviously, even worse. Not every broadcast went with deniers. NASA scientist Steven Clarke got air time on CBS News’s Face the Nation to talk about the report. CBS responded for comment with a transcript of their Sunday show. “You will notice the number of times the climate report came up,” they added, pointing out that Sen. Bernie Sanders appeared on the show to discuss it. (FOX, NBC and CNN did not respond to a request for comment.) But the treatment given by CBS is rare; John Whitehouse, news director for Media Matters for America, which describes itself as a nonprofit “dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation,” pointed out that exactly zero scientists appeared on Sunday news shows during their paucity of climate coverage from 2016-2017.
"Possibly" nothing to do with climate change. Trumps ample gut would know. We had a 7.0 earthquake near Anchorage. (and we don't have an earthquake thread) Now we wait for the Tsunami. We live in a "watch you're butt doesn't get wet zone. Just up they have cancelled the Tsunami warning. People in DC can stand down.
More about conservation stories, but hey some good news. 99 Good News Stories You Probably Didn’t Hear About in 2018 https://medium.com/future-crunch/99...robably-didnt-hear-about-in-2018-cc3c65f8ebd0
Bullshit to cash in for orange freemason bilderberg shell and the other freemason scum. Tax the poor the make the poor even poorer with higher orange shell benzine prices under the name of global warming bullshit. And the Killuminati rich get richer.
I've noticed all sorts of right wing tricks when it comes to denying AGW. All of them are stupid but might trick up people who don't study the science. Weird objections I've heard. 1. Humans are not the cause of global warming, the earth's climate has always changed even before humans were here. Why it's a stupid argument: It's never warmed this rapidly and this time we KNOW it's humans who are causing it. See more on this below. But as far as the earth never warming this rapidly, read more here https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/temperature-is-rising#.XDN6GVdKj1I 2. It's the Sun warming the planet, not humans. Why it's a stupid argument: This is known as a MIlankovitch cycle where the sun's orbit changes the temperature and it's been floated by a few right wing "scientists" to try and dismiss the C02 links to climate change. It's a bad argument because a Milankovitch cycle is just not able to warm the earth to the level's we've seen. Or as NASA's Chris Colose explains: "Milankovitch cycles are insufficient to explain the full range of Quaternary climate change, which also requires greenhouse gas and albedo variations, but they are a primary forcing that must be accounted for." An extremely fleshed out version of the above quote can be found here by Pat Hackett, science writer for Medium https://medium.com/@pathackett/the-milankovitch-cycles-and-climate-change-today-7b424ba74113 3. Because of the Grand Solar Minimum, we have an ice age coming. Why it's a stupid argument: It's not true. It's a relatively new argument I've been seeing from dumb right wingers. Apparently the argument is that solar activity is slowing down so the earth will be cooling soon. Again, there is no evidence the cooling will even make a tiny dent in global warming https://www.skepticalscience.com/upcoming-ice-age-postponed-indefinitely.html 4. There is no consensus on global warming among scientists, I've seen many on Fox News argue there is no human caused global warming happening. Why it's a stupid argument: Those scientists, like creationist biologists, make up a tiny subset of those who take the minority position and often they don't publish their work, they just go on Fox News and make wild claims without any real credentials. Unfortunately I myself was a climate skeptic and I used to make this very argument here on Bigsoccer, that there was no consensus by scientists. The consensus keeps growing. Read more here, they break down the polls of scientists and the percentage of peer reviewed data on one side vs the other. I mean, Forbes had an article claiming there is not a 97% consensus but there is. https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm But as NASA points out, virtually all of the worlds science organizations agree with the consensus. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ 5. Scientists are using computer models and are not accurate. Why it's a stupid argument: I've seen this argument a lot and I've seen it on Breitbart. There is a British climate denier on Breitbart (who by the way is not a scientist at all) who keeps misrepresenting the data. The models have actually been very accurate, read many of them here: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming 6. Scientists just fudge numbers to get grant money. Why it's a stupid argument: I've never seen this argument supported by any evidence and again...ALMOST ALL of the worlds climate scientists are on the same side here, how could you get a conspiracy that big? Even the US Military admits it's a national defense issue, are they looking for grant money? Even the former climate change denying Trump appointed Republican NASA chief admits he was wrong about climate change after learning more about it, is he looking for grant money too? https://www.space.com/40857-trumps-...n-climate-change-he-is-a-scientific-hero.html Also they might bring up Climate Gate which was blown way out of proportion by the right. 8 investigations were done and no evidence of fudging data was found by anyone. But I occasionally still see right wingers bring it up for some reason. 7. Scientific consensus was wrong before, people used to think the world was flat... Why it's a stupid argument: There has never been a scientific consensus this large with this much supporting data that was overturned since the inception of the scientific method. Since peer reviewed journals started popping up science has gotten much better and less prone to major errors. There are over 700,000 peer reviewed papers on climate change published just in the last 5 years all pointing to anthropogenic global warming. It would be a miracle of biblical proportions for that much data to be demonstrated to be false. 8. But...scientists said there was a coming ice age back in the 70's That was never the consensus view, a few scientists predicted it but most disagreed and we've learned a lot since then. https://www.climate.gov/teaching/resources/70s-they-said-thered-be-ice-age 9. Demonstrate that it is humans causing the warming... Co2 levels coincide almot exactly with our rise in temperatures, you can tell by the isotopes that it's human emissions warming the planet https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans 10. But isn't C02 good for plants and life? There's a point where it is harmful.This references 4 separate studies that show as much https://slate.com/technology/2016/02/too-much-carbon-dioxide-is-a-very-bad-thing.html
Seems like you've been duped like many others. When I got up this morning it was a freezing too cold 60 deg F. The space heater is still running!
I heard a new one recently: global warming is real, but it will be okay. The stuff we grow in Iowa and Nebraska now, we'll just grow in Minnesota and Noryh Dakota in 50 years! Ummm, dudes, two words: Top. Soil. The last round of deglaciation was much nicer to some places than it was to others when it comes to this important factor.
I await a similarly lengthy discussion from non-scientists about the errors in recent cancer research, and on how string theory can be improved.
Can't speak of the latter, but there are some cancer-centered conspiracy theories out there that rival the theorizing of the anti-vaccination crowd in terms of whackiness. And potential danger.
Remember that in this very thread otherwise intelligent posters mounted detailed arguments about how the pause was real Where are those guys now?