A Trump Insider Embeds Climate Denial in Scientific Research (nytimes.com) 382
An official at the Interior Department embarked on a campaign that has inserted misleading language about climate change -- including debunked claims that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial -- into the agency's scientific reports, the New York Times reported Monday, citing internal documents. From the report: The misleading language appears in at least nine reports, including environmental studies and impact statements on major watersheds in the American West that could be used to justify allocating increasingly scarce water to farmers at the expense of wildlife conservation and fisheries. The effort was led by Indur M. Goklany, a longtime Interior Department employee who, in 2017 near the start of the Trump administration, was promoted to the office of the deputy secretary with responsibility for reviewing the agency's climate policies. The Interior Department's scientific work is the basis for critical decisions about water and mineral rights affecting millions of Americans and hundreds of millions of acres of land.
The wording, known internally as the "Goks uncertainty language" based on Mr. Goklany's nickname, inaccurately claims that there is a lack of consensus among scientists that the earth is warming. In Interior Department emails to scientists, Mr. Goklany pushed misleading interpretations of climate science, saying it "may be overestimating the rate of global warming, for whatever reason;" climate modeling has largely predicted global warming accurately. The final language states inaccurately that some studies have found the earth to be warming, while others have not. He also instructed department scientists to add that rising carbon dioxide -- the main force driving global warming -- is beneficial because it "may increase plant water use efficiency" and "lengthen the agricultural growing season." Both assertions misrepresent the scientific consensus that, overall, climate change will result in severe disruptions to global agriculture and significant reductions in crop yields.
The wording, known internally as the "Goks uncertainty language" based on Mr. Goklany's nickname, inaccurately claims that there is a lack of consensus among scientists that the earth is warming. In Interior Department emails to scientists, Mr. Goklany pushed misleading interpretations of climate science, saying it "may be overestimating the rate of global warming, for whatever reason;" climate modeling has largely predicted global warming accurately. The final language states inaccurately that some studies have found the earth to be warming, while others have not. He also instructed department scientists to add that rising carbon dioxide -- the main force driving global warming -- is beneficial because it "may increase plant water use efficiency" and "lengthen the agricultural growing season." Both assertions misrepresent the scientific consensus that, overall, climate change will result in severe disruptions to global agriculture and significant reductions in crop yields.
Stop Him (Score:2)
Trump is the best source of Fake news (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump keeps working hard to be the top source of Fake news!
"A" Trump insider? (Score:2)
I thought they'd ALL do it.
They're saying CO2 doesn't promote plant growth (Score:2)
When was this thoroughly debunked? In some model somewhere? As a thought experiment?
Look, if one side can be reasonably argued, isn't that admitting that an argument needed to be made. Maybe they should ask greenhouse owners why they raise the level of CO2 in their greenhouses.
Re:They're saying CO2 doesn't promote plant growth (Score:4, Interesting)
CO2 fertilization is certainly a real thing with measurable effects. I worked on a project where we studied CO2 fertilization effects on wheat. We found that under increased CO2, wheat yields increased; that is, the mass of harvested grain increased. However, several of the important nutritional components of the grain (most critically, the protein content) did not increase proportionally to the mass, which means that even though we got more grain at harvest, the grain was of poorer quality because of reduced nutrient density.
And by the way, when farmers harvest their grain and sell it, the buyer doesn't just pay a set amount per pound. The buyers take samples of the grain as it passes into the grain elevator and assay it for protein and mineral content. The price per pound is then computed based upon average nutrient density. So what we get with higher biomass but lower nutrient density is increased harvesting and transportation costs with no increase in sale price or profits.
The same is apparently true for other important crops including rice and soybeans. Check out the wikipedia page on CO2 fertilization.
I'm only talking about agricultural effects of CO2 fertilization. In other species, like trees, the effects may be different. I haven't studied that. My point is, in the realm of agriculture, yes, CO2 fertilization occurs, and it has measurable effects. But the effects aren't necessarily positive, and it looks like we'd be better off without the increased CO2.
Indur M. Goklany on Desmog (Score:2)
"Climate Denial" (Score:2)
They do know that by 2020 everybody has wisened up to propaganda terms and just turns the page, right? Nobody says "OMG are they Climate Nazis?" anymore. Low-effort propagandists should lose their jobs.
The Special Hell for 'people' like this Goklany (Score:2)
Too bad I don't believe Hell actually exists, it's needed for 'people' li
The Republican hatred of the environment (Score:3)
Republican's persistent drive to exploit and destroy earth's natural environment is incredible. The agenda is to privatize and convert every national park into an oil sands quarry, cut off and process every redwood tree, hunt down every wolf, drill for oil on the shores of California, Hawaii and everywhere else, build an oil pipeline through every vulnerable habitat or a source of drinking water, ramp up coal extraction and construction of coal fired plants, and so on. This effort now went on for at least 40-50 years.
Re:Will the Trump nightmare never end? (Score:4, Interesting)
Will my health insurance cover the red pill?
Re: (Score:3)
Insurance is being done away with. You will simply need to queue in line at the Government Clinic.
And the only thing on offer will be 'Jesus Prayer Care' the way things are going.
Re:Will the Trump nightmare never end? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have been considered right of center for most of my life... However with Trump, I had to change my position away from the Republican party, and be more liberal.
Why?
1. Religion: My Christian Faith as its #1 and #2 rule is to "Love Thy Neighbor". Trumps policies and redirect encourage people to hate these "others" be it Mexicans, Muslims, Democrats, and other people who disagree with Trump.
2. Will not listen to experts: A scientist and science when done properly will come up with results that are neutral to political and religious views. Experts spend their career looking at particular problems in detail. Expert often finds they are many counter intuitive factors involved in situations, and leading with great intuition isn't enough.
3. Lies and Lies: If it doesn't put Trump in a good light he will lie, redirect or blame others. I see no learning and improving just double down.
4. Doesn't care for the public only for himself: People are dying in blue states, it is there fault even if it is from federal policy. Creates a tax policy that deliberately hurts blue states, and territories. He will only love you if you love him.
The real shame is the Republican Party has a lot to offer the nation, however I cannot in good conscious vote for them, because of Trump problems, the the GOP leadership bending backwards to support him, vs fighting for the good parts of the party.
Both parties have good and bad tenancies. Trump is the embodiment of all that is bad about the Republican party, and does little to to help forward the good parts.
I am not a big fan of the Democrats, however I would vote for the most liberal of them vs the republican party, because it has fallen so far in the few years, that it will need a major loss to realize it has lost its way.
suck out all the air, the fire goes out (Score:2)
with Trump, I had to change my position away from the Republican party
Well, you could always start your own republican party without the blackjack and hookers.
Re:Will the Trump nightmare never end? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have been considered right of center for most of my life... However with Trump, I had to change my position away from the Republican party, and be more liberal.
Ditto. I don't think I'm "more liberal", but I'm certainly voting that way until Trump is gone. I'm not sure if I had ever voted for a Democrat other than in local elections, where party affiliation is irrelevant, but I voted straight-ticket Democrat in 2018 and will do the same in 2020 (I'll even hold my nose and vote for Bernie if the Democrats are foolish enough to nominate him). I'm not generally a single-issue voter, but restoring dignity, civility and rationality to the office of POTUS is crucial to me.
After my senators' comments and actions around the impeachment, I donated the maximum individual donation to Mitt Romney's campaign, and pledged to do the same to Mike Lee's opponents in the primary (if any) and general. I'm also going to donate to Mitch McConnell's opponents (he's up for re-election this year!). My concern about the impeachment "trial" wasn't actually so much about acquittal, but about the senate's decision to abdicate its constitutional responsibility to conduct a real, fair trial, and the senators' decisions to violate their sworn oaths to do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
> A scientist and science when done properly will come up with results that are neutral to political and religious views.
Not quite. They'll be arrived at *independently* from political and religious views, however, unless the results are completely irrelevant to anyone's business interests, they will they will almost certainly be heavily politically charged - or will become so quickly as one or more groups begins to oppose changes that would hurt their bottom line.
Science is about truth, politics and (o
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> 2. Will not listen to experts: A scientist and science when done properly will come up with results that are neutral to political and religious views. Experts spend their career looking at particular problems in detail. Expert often finds they are many counter intuitive factors involved in situations, and leading with great intuition isn't enough. Now do liberals and gender.
Ok, let's do just that. Science / Climate Change: Impacts our lives and our descendents. Science / Gender: Ok, I give up. Gender change isn't for me, but also doesn't affect me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Will the Trump nightmare never end? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Will the Trump nightmare never end? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Center is R. Left is D. Extreme far left is Europe, where you're for me ting from. No. You don't get to decide where are people are on the scale.
Right after you decide where people are on an arbitrary scale of your making, you say the OP doesn't get to decide where people fit on her more globally recognized scale. Do you see the cognitive dissonance in that?
While I am American, one common critique of my country which rings true quite often is we take a very US-centric view on most topics. If the rest of the developed world disagrees with America on a given issue, the common American viewpoint is the rest of the world is wrong. This is what you are doing here.
When you dismiss an ideology as being "European", you are essentially dismissing the rest of the developed world. Of the top 20 developed nations (as defined by the UN's Human Development Index), North America and Europe take up all but 4 spots (Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Japan). So if you dismiss all of Europe as extreme far left you nearly dismiss the entire developed world outside of North America.
But if you look at developed democracies around the world, AmiMoJo is absolutely correct. Democrats are a central party (leaning right of center, while currently resisting a recent push towards left of center), Republicans are far right, and there is no strong liberal party. You cannot get more extreme than the current Republican party without going full totalitarian. But you can go much further left than the Democratic party and still function like many successful developed democracies around the world.
Not all of Europe is far left (Score:3, Insightful)
You and AmiMoJo cherry pick things you like about some parts of Europe and leave out things nobody likes. High unemployment, high taxes, low entrepreneurship, etc are never mentioned.
"In 2016, about 4.8 million Europeans lived in the United States, accounting for 11 percent of the roughly 44 million U.S. immigrants"
That's almost the population of Denmark. Ever wonder why so many Europeans come to the USA in the first place?
Re:Not all of Europe is far left (Score:5, Insightful)
Interestingly enough, in 2016 the State Department roughly 9 million Americans were living abroad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Ever wonder why so many Americans go elsewhere in the first place?
Re: Will the Trump nightmare never end? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Center is R. Left is D. Extreme far left is Europe, where you're for me ting from. No. You don't get to decide where are people are on the scale.
Only in the USA would the Democrats be defined as Left, or the Republicans as Centric.
To those of us on the outside, looking in, the Democrats are centrist, with left leanings and a touch of extreme left.
The Republicans traditionally are mildly to the right. These days the extremists have control.
A scale is supposed to be objective, which includes comparison to other examples. By accepted international standards, the USA currently does
not have a mainstream left wing party.
Right, everyone else is crazy (Score:3)
It's not just Europe that to the Left of us, it's the whole world.
But yeah, sure, it's the rest of the world that's crazy, not us.
Existing Medicare (Score:5, Insightful)
The existing Medicare program uses private doctors, pharmacies, and hospitals. Why would Medicare for All nationalize them?
What it does is cut out the middle-men for most health payments, the insurance companies. They add overhead, but not value to the system.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's a pretty world-standard hybrid model, one that most large industries in the US operate under.
When he suggests government owning hospitals and pharmaceutical companies instead of regulating them, then we can discuss his communist tendencies.
In the meantime, can you educate yourself or quit making shit up?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know how varied the laws are in the EU regarding health insurance, but I suspect most of them follow some kind of variation of Canada and Germany's systems, which would be similar to Medicare for all.
Overall, the content of that article isn't wrong, in that it would be a drastic alteration of the current system for a very large amount of people. But the headline- "Medicare for All Wou
Re:Will the Trump nightmare never end? (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny, I went the other way, also because my religion forbids INFANTICIDE.
Right at the moment, all the Republican controlled states have the worst infant mortality, due cutting funding for neonatal health care. Missisippi kills the highest number of babies, with an infant mortality rate twice that of Massachusetts. (https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/slideshows/infant-mortality-rate-by-state)
So, I assume that if your religion forbids infanticide, you vote strongly Democrat, right?
Re: Will the Trump nightmare never end? (Score:2)
Missisippi kills the highest number of babies
Mississippians kill the highest number of babies, through ignorance and gluttonous, unhealthy lifestyles... and yeah, their State spends the least on "treating" this [particular] symptom of their [decaying] society.
You only focus on a small part of the equation.
Re: (Score:3)
Missisippi kills the highest number of babies
Mississippians kill the highest number of babies, through ignorance and gluttonous, unhealthy lifestyles... and yeah, their State spends the least on "treating" this [particular] symptom of their [decaying] society. You only focus on a small part of the equation.
True. There's also maternal mortality, a factor for which Missisippi also sucks, but is by no means the worst state-- Louisiana leads on that, with an astonishing maternal death rate of 58.1 (compared to Massachusetts, at 8.4).
http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/maternal-mortality-rate-by-state/
If your "pro life" politics includes not killing mothers, you should be very strongly in favor of Democrats.
Re: Will the Trump nightmare never end? (Score:3)
So if you are poor (or poorly-educated) then it's acceptable to have worse health care?
Re: (Score:2)
Clump of cells does not a person make.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Funny, I went the other way, also because my religion forbids INFANTICIDE.
Regardless of how much I disagree with your opinion that abortion is intanticide, it is one of very few motivations where I fully understand why voters stick with the current Republican party. I remember one radio interview where a woman said "I understand I may lose my health care and my economic situation may get worse, but I couldn't live with myself if I voted for a party that kills babies just to improve my own life." It was really enlightening to see someone who understands how bad Republican policies
Re:Will the Trump nightmare never end? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can respect that position. I'd respect it a bit more if the Republican party were actually doing anything effective in that field. The are very keen on the idea of prohibiting abortion - but they also oppose comprehensive sex education schemes that would effectively reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, and they seem actively hostile to giving any of those babies access to healthcare if their parents are not sufficiently wealthy to deserve it.
Re:Will the Trump nightmare never end? (Score:4, Insightful)
OTOH, these people are against birth control and don't give a shit about actual infants.
Re:Will the Trump nightmare never end? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what is the GOP actually doing to reduce the number of abortions? They are just punishing the people who do. But that doesn't lower the number.
A very few people see Abortions as just a form of birth control, be used causally. The most have to make a serious decision, often weighing in factors such as economic burden of raising a child (that the GOP doesn't want to address), Making sure the father plays their part (that the GOP doesn't want to address), Having the community shun her for being a single parent (that the GOP doesn't want to address), being able to have enough time to care for the child alone (that the GOP doesn't want to address)...
If you really care about Abortions, stop focusing on the fact that it is a legal procedure, and focus on fixing the reasons why people would want to do the procedure.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You should hate them too because
Boom, the party of supply-side Jesus right there!
Re: (Score:2)
Since you are so keen to have citations would you care to provide a citation for your statement that "70% of illegal aliens living on welfare that live a better life than half of the middle class slaving away 40+ hours a week"?
I assume you will either point to a quote of Trump stating that 50%+ of immigrants use government assistance (just because he says it doesn't make it true) or maybe a link to either foxnews.com or cis.org stating something similar. I could counter those with links to vox.com https://w [vox.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You really do outdo yourself when producing such elaborate fabrications
Re: (Score:3)
Good job there, way to prove a point.
Last I heard, the groups/people you mentioned are fringe elements and do not really hold any power.
Re: (Score:2)
Those groups currently don't hold any sort of significant power.
As stated both political parties have their negative influences. However the GOP seems to be embracing them, while the Democrats try to keep them tempered.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate Nazi's, I hate pedophiles, I hate followers of the gospel of prosperity, basically I hate evil people.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Then Trump took away abortion, but I always pulled out, so I did not speak out.
Then Trump had VP Pence neutralize gay marriage with a deep cycle marine battery, but I was no homo so I saved money on wedding gifts.
Then Trump red flagged my AR-15, but there was no one left to stand up for me...
The Trumpacalypse carries on unabated. Whatever will we do?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Will the Trump nightmare never end? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that article jumps over hoops to paint Pence in a positive light.
Are you seriously contending that Snopes - SNOPES - would twist facts to help a conservative? I guess we can wait for Brian Stelter to become a cheerleader for Trump, and Bernie Sanders to admit that Castro was a terrible, horrible person who ruined Cuba.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize despite what Trump says, there is no such thing as abortion after the baby is born? I would also argue that "[Donald Trump:] Not acceptable to rip baby from womb in 9th month" would probably be called a c-section not an abortion.
Also, he "has only stated that he is pro-life" except for the times he has said he was pro-choice. https://abcnews.go.com/Politic... [go.com]
[T]rump wanted to end the forced provision of birth control to religious companies that no one in that company wanted in the first place
If no one in the company wants birth control then why would it matter if the government mandated that companies provide birth control
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A side effect. Like everything the US wants to have it's been Made in China.
Re: (Score:2)
A side effect. Like everything the US wants to have it's been Made in China.
Good one ...
Re: (Score:2)
Like the God you ascribe this activity to has to practice.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who ever did any kind of tech support will tell you that no later than in the presence of a computer, even someone with multiple doctorates turns into a complete idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
85% of facts are random numbers! ... unless you have some proof to back it up! :)
Re:Dr. Goklany's credentials (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dr. Goklany's credentials (Score:5, Informative)
You have this backwards. Anyone who could disprove AGW at this point would be a rock star.
Everyone wants to see the scientific consensus upended, but there are rules to the game. The rules can be summarized this way: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You don't make sweeping claims from meager evidence; you pick pick pick away until you tease out a loose thread.
There are a few anti-AGW climate scientists; some come to this from a religious conviction that God's will forbids climate change. And even those guys do publish, but they have to confine themselves to evidence supporting their beliefs -- of which there is bound to be some, given the complexity of the climate system. Nobody cares what you believe or why; what matters is what you can prove.
Re:Logical fallacies everywhere (Score:5, Informative)
AGW is negatable on multiple fronts.
You could show CO2 cannot appreciably increase the energy absorbed in the atmosphere. You could show that CO2 cannot increase in the atmosphere. You can show that the heat trapped by CO2 goes somewhere other than the troposophere. You can show that CO2 is not, in fact, increasing. You can show that the CO2 increase is not from human sources.
It's not like disproving the existence of black swans. AGW is the name for a complex process and all you need do to show it is impossible is to show that elements of that process either violate physics or simply have not been observed.
Re:Dr. Goklany's credentials (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dr. Goklany's credentials (Score:4)
And out comes the conspiracy theory.
CO2 has the properties it has. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a thing. There's no denying it, not getting around it. The universe doesn't care about your feelings, about what you put in the fuel tank of your car, your investment portfolio or the cost of tea in China. Increase the thermal equilibrium of the lower atmosphere, and more energy (mainly thermal) will be trapped. Your emotional response is utterly irrelevant to the laws of physics. They are not contingent on your skepticism or your easily-bruised ego.
Re: (Score:2)
Where was that done in this story?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How many "actively publishing climate scientists" are there?
Re: Dr. Goklany's credentials (Score:2)
Bill Nye is a television actor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Melodrama much?
Publish your findings and subject them to peer review, we're waiting!
Re: Dr. Goklany's credentials (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Dr. Goklany's credentials (Score:3)
On the point I agree with the article's premise. No one should be rewording/watering down the conclusions of various experts. Especially when there is this large of a consensus on the topic. It is even more important for a person in a position of power to remain neutral.
Even if they themselves are an expert in the concepts; they should remain neutral due to the position they hold. If they really want to show the other side, then get out of your leadership position and put out your own papers and get peer r
Freeman Dyson (Score:4, Informative)
When I was in physics graduate school 25 years ago, Freeman Dyson gave a guest lecture to our department. By that point he was already essentially retired, and his talk was a hodge-podge of whatever he wanted to talk about. One of his talks was about global warming and CO2, and how he did not buy it. He gave lots of pictures of trees and results from one study showing how much CO2 trees absorbed. The atmospheric physicist in our department was not impressed, and let's say Dr. Dyson's predictions did not pan out over the last 25 years.
Particle and theoretical physicists tend to overestimate their intelligence and expertise, and underestimate other peoples'. Sheldon Cooper from Big Bang Theory is based on real people. As an astrophysicist I noticed this ignorance. When one physicist tried to explain synchrotron radiation to me, I told him that I already learned it in my Radiative Processes in Astrophysics class. He told me no, this was different. After he explained it, I told him, no, it was the same effect that happens in stars. One theoretical physicist was shocked when he learned that astronomers do not just catalog stars, but that they can calculate stars' mass, momenta, and densities even more precisely than many objects on earth.
If you are going to believe experts on climate, I recommend that those experts be atmospheric physicists and chemists, not particle physicists or engineers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Freeman Dyson (Score:5, Interesting)
Even physicists' physical intuitions aren't necessarily reliable. I once had an argument with a physics professor who believed that the ozone layer couldn't possibly have any practical effect on UV. His argument was that the amount of ozone in the atmosphere is small, and that if you collapsed it all into a shell of pure O3 at surface pressure it'd be only a few millimeters thick.
I happened to know the problem with this argument because I'd just taken a planetary astronomy class: the scale depth [wikipedia.org] of a material depends on wavelength. A thin pane of glass is very transparent at optical wavelengths but is very opaque to shorter. UV wavelengths. Richard Feynman was one of the few people to observe the Trinity test directly; he watched it from behind the wheel of a truck, vision protected from UV by a couple mm of glass.
His other argument was than an ozone "hole" could not possibly exist, because O3 and O2 are in an equilibrium so that if you take O3 out, the equilibrium simply produces more. My freshman chemistry was still fresh, so I knew the problem with that argument too: an equilibrium is *defined* to be the state where concentrations of reactants do not change. Stating that "O3 and O2 are in equilibrium" was assuming the conclusion he wanted to make.
The lesson: don't accept a scientist's intuition as authoritative when he's talking about something outside his area of research. In his area of research those intuitions get regularly taken out behind the woodshed for a good hiding, and as a result they're pretty robust. Outside his area of expertise, even a *little* outside, and his handwaving explanations have no more authority than anyone else's. He can make *arguments*, outside his field, anyone can; but his judgments can't be taken as more reliable than people working in the field.
Re: (Score:3)
Turns out he's actually a scientist too.
Nope. Turns out he's an engineer. You might as well say someone who graduated from culinary school is a scientist, because he has to be familiar with a little chemistry.
Re:Dr. Goklany's credentials (Score:5, Informative)
Here's one of his papers on Carbon Dioxide, with the foreward written by Freeman Dyson. It seems like only a few days ago Dyson was being honored here, I guess he'll have to be unpersoned now: https://www.thegwpf.org/conten... [thegwpf.org]
That's not a paper that's been peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal. It's been published by the UK lobby group Global Warming Policy Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] the wiki article paints a less than flattering picture.
I simply fail to see how you could reason that anything published by them would support your proposition that Goklany is anything but a low level hack, to me it seems like just another nail in the coffin?
Re:Dr. Goklany's credentials (Score:4, Insightful)
Turns out he's actually a scientist too. M.S. and PhD in Electrical Engineering.
Ah, so he's not "a scientist". From climate science's perspective, he's a glorified electrician. Misplaced self-confidence of engineers outside of their field is not anything new, though. [rationalwiki.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dr. Goklany's credentials (Score:4, Insightful)
"because appeal to authority is a logical fallacy"
Then why is the "consensus of scientists" pushed in the story and trotted out every time a discussion is attempted on this subject?
Re:Dr. Goklany's credentials (Score:5, Informative)
"because appeal to authority is a logical fallacy"
Then why is the "consensus of scientists" pushed in the story and trotted out every time a discussion is attempted on this subject?
Because that's not how "Appeal to Authority" works:
"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not."
(emphasis mine)
(from here [yourlogicalfallacyis.com])
Re:Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
and the wikipedia article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Most of the added language is indeed inaccurate: in broad overview, the effects of trace gas infrared absorbers on the atmospheric heat balance has been understood for over fifty years, and wasn't even slightly controversial until the oil companies started to make a political issue of it in the 80s. However, he is partially right on his very last point, that rising carbon dioxide does have benefits to plant growth (although beneficial only in those locations in which the limiting factor to growth rate is CO2 intake rather than other factors like, say, water or nitrogen). Climate alterations will also result in disruptions to global agriculture, which could reasonably be expected to be larger than the beneficial effects, but it's useful to make sure you include all effects in the analysis.
The fact that climate is warming due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide (and other trace gas) emissions is clear. Exactly what the effects will be, and calculating the cost of those effects, is much harder.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Science is more cost effective when you base the conclusion on the only socially acceptable result, and work your way backwards from there.
Re: Cool (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Science is more cost effective when you base the conclusion on the only socially acceptable result, and work your way backwards from there.
WTF: Apparently I totally misunderstood this post - isn't the statement sarcasm?
(perhaps a bit too subtle?)
Re: (Score:2)
It just occurred to me an interesting way out of this.
What if we could mine nitrogen and carbon out of the air? And use it to replace fossil fuels in creation of industrial fertilizer?
Mining nitrogen and carbon [Re:Cool] (Score:5, Funny)
It just occurred to me an interesting way out of this. What if we could mine nitrogen and carbon out of the air? And use it to replace fossil fuels in creation of industrial fertilizer?
Hmmm... peanuts do exacty that: mine nitrogen and carbon out of the air.
What if we elected a peanut farmer to be president? Or would that just be crazy?
Re:Cool (Score:4, Informative)
You can. It's called the Haber process, and is the most common means of producing ammonia industrially today. When you talk about 'industrial fertilizer,' that's where the ammonia to make it comes from.
It's also very energy-intensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Glowball Warmening is a -theory-.
And once you have learned what "scientific theory" means, you may even expect someone who does to actually take you seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness it actually doesn't mean much of anything. It once meant a hypothesis whose testable predictions had all been tested successfully but that standard has been tossed out with many theories not having all their predictions successfully tested.
Just add that alongside the p factor to the list of standards being dropped or reduced so we can squeeze in more social science conclusions we need to find 'scientific' evidence for.
a well-confirmed theory (Score:2, Informative)
1) Questioning "consensus" is what scientists do. They make up a theory about something and they DISPROVE it.
Minor edit: scientists make up a theory about something and then they attempt to DISPROVE it.
They've been trying to do so for well over 50 years now... and have not managed to do so. That's why it's a consensus: because so far, there is no alternative theory that has not been ruled out by measurements. (the "null hypothesis is strongly rejected", to phrase it in science terms.)
Glowball Warmening is a -theory-.
Yes: Global warming is a very well-confirmed theory.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the report says that the US produced the largest absolute drop in CO2 emissions of any country -- this would appear to be, however, mostly because it is one or the largest emitter in absolute terms of CO2. The 2.9% drop is not world leading with Germany at an 8% drop.
Trumpism? The counter argument would be that we have seen similar (and greater percentage) drops in many countries; mostly what is happening at the moment, is no one is investing in coal and lots of people are investing in other techn
Re: (Score:2)
You may want to restate your premise. The US reduced the most CO2 emissions by total volume yet you stated the 2.9% that their emissions were reduced. There were other countries that actually had a larger percentage decline in CO2 though. The EU actually had a larger overall reduction than the US also. I realize that the EU isn't one country but comparing EU vs US is a bit more analogous than comparing the US to individual EU countries.
It isn't really all that surprising that the US's CO2 emissions decrease
Re:U.S. is the global leader in emissions reductio (Score:4, Informative)
The reason the US has been so economically successful SINCE the 1920s is because we have rejected those communists and socialists from taking over.
The "communism" and "socialism" that the right has been railing against is the older economic sense of the word: worker ownership of the means of production (which had been implemented by Soviet Russia and others as "government nationalism of the means of production", where the government claims to be operating in the behalf of the workers.)
The "socialism" that people have been talking about recently is "government actions which benefit the people", such as social security and health care.
They are two different things.
To reference your final statement, Social Security was derided as "socialism!" since the 1930s [ref [latimes.com]]: we didn't reject it, and we have been economically successful. So your final statement is inaccurate by the presently used meaning of socialism (which includes the meaning used in 1935, when Social Security was called "socialism"),
Yes, I agree: the fact that different factions use the word to mean different things makes the conversation confusing.
Socialism and healthcare references (Score:4, Informative)
Well that's nice. But railing against communism and socialsm isn't a left/right issue. Normal Americans dislike both socialism and communism.
I don't see the evidence for that. 43% of Americans say socialism would be a good thing for the country, 51% believe socialism would be a bad thing for the country. (Ref: https://news.gallup.com/poll/2... [gallup.com])
I expect that much of that difference is that the two groups have different definitions of "socialism." (Ref: https://news.gallup.com/opinio... [gallup.com] )
I'm sure you would disagree, but whatever. And Social Security IS a disaster and always has been,
I don't see the evidence for that. Before social security, the plan was: if you get old and don't have a pension, you die.
and so would be socialized medicine.
I don't see the evidence for that. Proponents point to Western Europe, which has a significantly lower death rate and a hugely lower cost than the United States. (ref: https://www.worldometers.info/... [worldometers.info] https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com] ) Are you just saying that Western European people are competent, and Americans aren't?
The Democrats keep going on and on about healthcare, but the fact is: ordinary people don't care about it.
I don't see the evidence for that.
They have healthcare, either through their job or Medicare (which is also a disaster).
I won't even bother with a reference here; go talk to some humans (ones who don't have $100,000/year jobs with cushy benefits).
The problem with healthcare is the COST,
OK, you are right on this one!
which Obamacare never addressed.
Nope. Go back and read the news at the time. Attempts to address cost were all shot down, presumably by interests funded by the people raking off money by the high costs.
So basically the everyone lost faith in Democrats coming up with anything meaningful in healthcare. People don't want "Medicare for all". But yeah, keep trotting out that schtick every election cycle.
When rolled out, polls showed the majority of people disliked Obamacare. But the details of the dislike were that about 25% didn't like it because it went too far, and about 20% didn't like it because they thought it didn't go far enough.
After a few years, though, the opinions switched, and the majority of Americans now do like Obamacare (probably because the Republicans have never actually articulated a plan for what they would like instead.) (Ref: https://www.kff.org/interactiv... [kff.org] )
Re: (Score:3)
Russian "help" for bernie is obviously this sort of stuff. If you look into how russian subversion works -- you NEED TO pick something pre-trump just so you don't get paranoid about the truth. It creates more division while it also undermines Bernie, who is the last person they want.
I've heard some bernie people say some radial stuff and it's never along those lines in a serious way... I've not run into russian assets; the BOTS are online and never exist out in the real world as far as I can see. Nobody i
Tax rate in Scandanavia (Score:3)
But in the US, "business evil!" carries a lot of tax and regulatoru weight. You should be low tax on business and tax the hell out of the population itself, if you want to be like Scandanvian countries.
Norway has 24% corporate income tax, Sweden and Denmark 22%, and Finland 20% (ref [statista.com]). This compares to 21% in the U.S. (ref [taxpolicycenter.org])
I'm not sure what you mean by "you should be low tax on business", unless that phrase means "a slightly higher, but not very much higher, tax on business".
Didn't think so.
Huh? Didn't think what?
WTF? Re:Believability of NYTimes? (Score:2, Troll)
Americans are just getting more stupid each year! (I know, I'm here watching; so far I'm not infected.)
Mentally Ill Trump and his ass-kissers are so blatantly untrustworthy you really have to be a massive rube to not suspect the OPPOSITE of anything they say. Literally 1000s of examples of provable lies they've insisted upon like some Jedi fanboy's attempt at mind control. Some people really are so stupid that repetition works; that number seems to be increasing.
Observe people! This is late stage democrac