Implementing the Ministry of Truth: the "fake news" scare

[RegGuheert]

Selectively feeding the news media the information you want it to have, as a political figure, is what has always gone on. It is not the same as censorship. 

 

It is the media's job to check their facts and to publish unbiased information.  Much of the media have devolved into simply being mouthpieces for whomever they choose.

 

That is one of the main reasons why so many alternative sources of information have sprung up.

 

Edited December 8, 2016 by RegGuheert

[ktgrok]

I'm not yearning for the day when the "Truth" that is presented is decided by someone in either government or any corporation.  No one in this world is able to decide what is truth.  That is up to every individual to decide.  But I can only do that if I have a way to access ALL of the available information available. 

 

Those who are attempting to elevate themselves into position to decide what is "truth" need to be reigned in.

 

Reg, honey......um, what the straight hell are you talking about? "all available information" does that include made up stories with zero basis in fact? Do you want that put in your newspaper right alongside the factual stuff???

 

Yes, people in this world can decide what is truth. The freaking editor of a paper does that all day long, that's his/her JOB! 

 

And for the last time, no one at Google was taking away your ability to read batshit crazy stories made up just to get money, they were just moving them further down the list, you know, past the stuff that is about actual facts and things that actually happened. Feel free to read them. You'll just have to scroll down further. Again, having to scroll for an extra few seconds does not equal an infringement of first amendment rights. 

[Barb_]

The EPA pick made my heart super happy.

 

/oil industry wife

Can you explain? It sounds like you mean your heart is happy because your family will be personally enriched at the expense of the long term viability of many costal cities. Do you realize there are parts of South Florida RIGHT NOW that were dry 10 years ago and almost never drain?

[RegGuheert]

It sounds like you mean your heart is happy because your family will be personally enriched at the expense of the long term viability of many costal cities.

 

Not at 2 inches per century of sea level rise.

 

Do you realize there are parts of South Florida RIGHT NOW that were dry 10 years ago and almost never drain?

 

Sea level rise in Miami is nothing compared with the effects of the tide and storm surge:

 

 

[Bluegoat]

Selectively feeding the news media the information you want it to have, as a political figure, is what has always gone on. It is not the same as censorship. 

 

It can be used for the same purpose.  And arguably, with digital media and all the pressures on the fourth estate, it's much more possible to do it really effectively than in the past. 

 

I think that the changes in media formats are a big factor in this discussion - its really changed the game and it's possible that it could require new kinds of approaches and even regulation.

[Bluegoat]

I'm seeing sea level rise projections of way more than 2 inches - more like 2 meters. 

 

As far as what we have already, NASA says that in the past 20 years levels have risen by almost 3 inches.   In two years, my city has had an 11cm rise.  And rates of melt are increasing quickly.

 

In the future my province will be an island, and my house will be too.

 

Bad storms, of course, make that all the worse.

[RegGuheert]

Yeah.....some of us are kind of fond of our coastal towns. And not dying in hurricanes. 

 

You are in luck.  There have been no major hurricanes to make landfall on the United States in over 11 years.  This is the longest drought in major landfalling hurricanes in the U.S. since record keeping began around the time of the Civil War.

 

Some facts for your reference: 30 peer-reviewed papers which refute the idea that climate changes increases the severity or frequency of hurricanes.  <- Included there are papers which indicate that COOLER sea surface temperatures are what cause more frequent and/or intense hurricanes.

[Amira]

I'm pretty sure that people affected by Hurricane Matthew a few months ago wouldn't consider themselves lucky even if it wasn't technically defined as a major hurricane.

[RegGuheert]

I'm seeing sea level rise projections of way more than 2 inches - more like 2 meters. 

 

As far as what we have already, NASA says that in the past 20 years levels have risen by almost 3 inches.   In two years, my city has had an 11cm rise.  And rates of melt are increasing quickly.

 

Read the papers.  Based on the science, any projection of sea level rise beyond 1 meter per century is "sheer nonsense".  There is no acceleration in sea-level rise.

 

 

IIn the future my province will be an island, and my house will be too.

 

If you don't believe me, simply go to this global map of tidal gauges and click on the arrow closest to where you live.  Then click the link which says "Linear Trend" and it will show you all of the recorded sea-level data for that station.  I have clicked around on many of these in the past and only one or two showed any sign of acceleration.  IIRC, those were in Hawaii.

 

Bad storms, of course, make that all the worse.

 

Fortunately, hurricanes and tornadoes are on their way down in this country.

[ktgrok]

You are in luck.  There have been no major hurricanes to make landfall on the United States in over 11 years.  This is the longest drought in major landfalling hurricanes in the U.S. since record keeping began around the time of the Civil War.

 

Some facts for your reference: 30 peer-reviewed papers which refute the idea that climate changes increases the severity or frequency of hurricanes.  <- Included there are papers which indicate that COOLER sea surface temperatures are what cause more frequent and/or intense hurricanes.

 

Someone should tell my aunt who's house was totally destroyed by a Hurricane a few months ago. I'm sure she will be very relieved to hear that it wasn't a major hurricane. 

[RegGuheert]

Someone should tell my aunt who's house was totally destroyed by a Hurricane a few months ago. I'm sure she will be very relieved to hear that it wasn't a major hurricane. 

 

That doesn't change the facts that I provided.

 

Perhaps someone should tell your aunt that if she buys a house in a hurricane zone it might get destroyed by one.

 

[SKL]

What I'd like to know is, who decided that "batshit" is a modifier for "crazy"?

[SKL]

I would note that there is big money in alternative energy. 

 

There is big power in being able to force a transition in energy sources.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Here's a maths study that talks about how unlikely conspiracy theories are to go uncovered. This idea of a co-ordinated cover up, on a global scale, is close to impossible to pull off over a long period of time.

 

This I pretty much believe.  I always think it would be incredibly difficult to pull off a very large conspiracy.  Eventually the truth will come out.

 

But then we might be busy thinking this to be the case.

 

I'm skeptical to the nth degree. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

What I'd like to know is, who decided that "batshit" is a modifier for "crazy"?

 

Yeah I wonder if there is something extra crazy about batshit.

[ktgrok]

And we can move a discussion of climate change to another thread. Disagreements on climate change do not equal fake news. Fake news would be saying that climate change is something created by aliens to control the populace of earth. Or that Clinton or Trump have special lasers heating up the earth, or whatever. 

[Bluegoat]

 

Read the papers.  Based on the science, any projection of sea level rise beyond 1 meter per century is "sheer nonsense".  There is no acceleration in sea-level rise.

 

 

 

If you don't believe me, simply go to this global map of tidal gauges and click on the arrow closest to where you live.  Then click the link which says "Linear Trend" and it will show you all of the recorded sea-level data for that station.  I have clicked around on many of these in the past and only one or two showed any sign of acceleration.  IIRC, those were in Hawaii.

 

 

Fortunately, hurricanes and tornadoes are on their way down in this country.

 

Um, the numbers for my city are from my provincial government.  I am in a coastal region, they are pretty interested in measuring these things. 

 

People who live in low countries are dealing with this NOW.  It isn't theoretical.  The same way people in the North are dealing with different climate trends, as we speak.

 

It isn't theory when your houses start falling over because the permafrost melts, or ships that could never get trough are going back and forth regularly, or you have to make evacuation plans for a nation.

[RegGuheert]

And we can move a discussion of climate change to another thread. Disagreements on climate change do not equal fake news. Fake news would be saying that climate change is something created by aliens to control the populace of earth. Or that Clinton or Trump have special lasers heating up the earth, or whatever. 

 

:confused1:  FACTS about climate change are off-topic for this thread?

 

Funny, no one claimed that facts about pizzagate were off-topic for this thread...

 

No, it is exactly on topic.  Read this post in which I provided pertinent facts about climate change and showed how Eric Schmidt of Google believes those who state the obvious implications of those facts are "lying."

 

What has happened since I started providing facts in this thread is that some of those who had been touting "facts," "facts," "facts" have not been able to respond with facts and instead have responded with fallacious arguments such as your appeal to emotion.

Edited December 8, 2016 by RegGuheert

[Bluegoat]

What I'd like to know is, who decided that "batshit" is a modifier for "crazy"?

 

I think maybe it is because people who used to work with it went bonkers, it is really nasty stuff.

[ktgrok]

:confused1:  FACTS about climate change are off-topic for this thread?

 

Funny, no one claimed that facts about pizzagate were off-topic for this thread...

 

No, it is exactly on topic.  Read this post in which I provided pertinent facts about climate change and showed how Eric Schmidt of Google believes those who state the obvious implications of those facts are "lying."

 

What has happened since I started providing facts in this thread is that some of those who had been touting "facts," "facts," "facts" have not been able to respond with facts and instead have responded with fallacious arguments such as your appeal to emotion.

 

Because for the purpose of discussing what to do about fake news, I figured it was better that we all focus on stories we agree are fake. I assumed everyone here agreed that pizza gate was fake. If we all have a common agreement on a fake topic, we can then discuss what should be done about "news" dealing with it. 

 

Arguing over what is or isn't true about climate change (which is about interpretation of those facts and their implications) derails the topic of what to do about fake news. 

 

Plus, I had to take a sleeping pill last night and am still too groggy to start googling and clipping facts about climate change. Which I can do. 

SaveSave

[Jen in NY]

:confused1:  FACTS about climate change are off-topic for this thread?

 

Funny, no one claimed that facts about pizzagate were off-topic for this thread...

 

No, it is exactly on topic.  Read this post in which I provided pertinent facts about climate change and showed how Eric Schmidt of Google believes those who state the obvious implications of those facts are "lying."

 

What has happened since I started providing facts in this thread is that some of those who had been touting "facts," "facts," "facts" have not been able to respond with facts and instead have responded with fallacious arguments such as your appeal to emotion.

 

 

I can't speak for everyone else, but the thing is, since I am not a climate scientist, any facts I would cite would be of other people's/organizations' research. There are many studies that have collectively, over time, from unrelated sources, indicated that climate change is happening. I could look them up and post them here. Then, you will look up some study that will refute whatever I post, because there are websites that present studies that will refute climate change. So, fine. We could go back and forth. The thing is, the overwhelming weight of studies, undertaken by a hugely disparate number and type of scientists, over many years, has borne out, under scientific scrutiny, that climate change is happening. Since I am not a scientist or expert of any kind, I choose to trust the widely researched, widely funded, many non-connected, independent scientists that come to that conclusion instead of looking for much smaller number of entities pushing the opposite view.

 

If you are interested, research how the tobacco companies went about discrediting scientists and doctors that tried to sound early warning bells about health and smoking. It is instructive and well documented. Proof isn't necessary to give people an excuse to continue the status quo... just enough doubt to make rationalization possible.

 

This also comes back around to news/fake news. One journalist to read in this vein is Jane Mayer. I look forward to reading her latest book.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Jen in NY

[ktgrok]

Exactly. Especially when I'm still doped up from a unisom sleeping pill. 

 

But for grins, here is the EPA chart showing the forced heating over the last time period, for greenhouse effect. And sure does look like it went up over the last 25 years. But I'm not a scientist,s o it would take me a while to dig in and search through the data. In the meantime, I'm willing to say it's not a hoax of the Chinese. 

 

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-climate-forcing

I can't speak for everyone else, but the thing is, since I am not a climate scientist, any facts I would cite would be of other people's/organizations' research. There are many studies that have collectively, over time, from unrelated sources, indicated that climate change is happening. I could look them up and post them here. Then, you will look up some study that will refute whatever I post, because there are websites that present studies that will refute climate change. So, fine. We could go back and forth. The thing is, the overwhelming weight of studies, undertaken by a hugely disparate number and type of scientists, over many years, has borne out, under scientific scrutiny, that climate change is happening. Since I am not a scientist or expert of any kind, I choose to trust the widely researched, widely funded, many non-connected, independent scientists that come to that conclusion instead of looking for much smaller number of entities pushing the opposite view.

 

If you are interested, research how the tobacco companies went about discrediting scientists and doctors that tried to sound early warning bells about health and smoking. It is instructive and well documented. Proof isn't necessary to give people an excuse to continue the status quo... just enough doubt to make rationalization possible.

 

Edited December 8, 2016 by ktgrok

[Bluegoat]

 

Read the papers.  Based on the science, any projection of sea level rise beyond 1 meter per century is "sheer nonsense".  There is no acceleration in sea-level rise.

 

 

 

If you don't believe me, simply go to this global map of tidal gauges and click on the arrow closest to where you live.  Then click the link which says "Linear Trend" and it will show you all of the recorded sea-level data for that station.  I have clicked around on many of these in the past and only one or two showed any sign of acceleration.  IIRC, those were in Hawaii.

 

 

Fortunately, hurricanes and tornadoes are on their way down in this country.

 

The site you linked yourself, the National Ocean Service,  says that sea level is rising at an increasing rate.  Maybe you aren't understanding their products properly.  It says:

 

"Since 1992, satellite altimeters indicate that the rate of rise has increased to 1.2 inches per decade—a significantly larger rate than at any other time over the last 2000 years. In the next several decades, continued sea level rise and land subsidence will cause tidal flood frequencies to rapidly increase due to typical storm surges and high tides in many coastal regions. "

[RegGuheert]

Because for the purpose of discussing what to do about fake news, I figured it was better that we all focus on stories we agree are fake..

 

Reread the thread title and thread starter if you want to understand the focus of this thread.

 

I have demonstrated that one of the principals at Google has stated as "truth" something that is extremely questionable and at the same time has claimed that those opposing his view are "lying".

[RegGuheert]

The site you linked yourself, the National Ocean Service,  says that sea level is rising at an increasing rate.  Maybe you aren't understanding their products properly.  It says:

 

"Since 1992, satellite altimeters indicate that the rate of rise has increased to 1.2 inches per decade—a significantly larger rate than at any other time over the last 2000 years. In the next several decades, continued sea level rise and land subsidence will cause tidal flood frequencies to rapidly increase due to typical storm surges and high tides in many coastal regions. "

 

Where do you live?  Also, can you please provide a link for the quote?

[historically accurate]

 

 

Never mind: this thread moves too fast for me...

Edited December 8, 2016 by beckyjo

[Bluegoat]

Where do you live?  Also, can you please provide a link for the quote?

 

Where I live isn't relevent.  THe NOS is talking about ocean levels on a worldwide basis.

 

Here is the page where they adress sea level rise.

 

And this is the point - they provided the data map which led you to believe it didn't exist.  Yet, based on the same kinds of data sets, they say it does.  This suggests you just aren't knowledgable enough to be able to understand these kinds of data when you are looking through studies and posting all these things to prove your point.

 

In any case - I think this really is outside the scope of the thread - at best you can say you think this is controversial and shouldn't count as "fact" for searches like used on google, it is just too controversial.  What I would say is there are plenty of people and websites that are clearly presenting false information, or improperly understood information, and they will still appear in searches if you look for them specifically.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Bluegoat

[RegGuheert]

But for grins, here is the EPA chart showing the forced heating over the last time period, for greenhouse effect. And sure does look like it went up over the last 25 years. But I'm not a scientist,s o it would take me a while to dig in and search through the data. In the meantime, I'm willing to say it's not a hoax of the Chinese. 

 

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-climate-forcing

 

That's the theory.

 

Then someone MEASURED the GLOBAL greenhouse effect over that period.  IT DID NOT INCREASE.

 

But, guess what?  Most people do not know about this measurement.  Why?  It's not because it was published in an obscure journal, either.  It's because the press chooses to ONLY publish the alarming results.

[Serenade]

I never watch TV news, I absolutely despise the sound bite nature of most of it. We don't own a TV, but I can't even bear to watch it in waiting rooms or at airports.

This exactly. Except we do own a TV. We use it to watch DVDs, the Olympics, the Super Bowl and the debates.

 

I have left waiting rooms and told the receptions I'll be out in the hall -- call for me there when my turn comes. I just can't stand to listen to the blathering of the 24 hour news channels, which is where the doctors usually have set the dial. Now at my dentist, at least, the TVs are tuned to Food Network or one of those home repair/decorating channels.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Serenade

[Bluegoat]

This exactly. Except we do own a TV. We use it to watch DVDs, the Olympics, the Super Bowl and the debates.

 

I have left waiting rooms and told the receptions I'll be out in the hall -- call for me there when my turn comes. I just can't stand to listen to the blathering of the 24 hour news channels, which is where the doctors usually have set the dial. Now at my dentist, at least, the TVs are tuned to Food Network or one of those home repair/decorating channels.

 

When I was in the army, I worked in an office for a while where CNN was on the ofice tv, right where I worked, all the time. 

 

It drove me nuts.

 

Even CBC or BBC would have been a little better.

[ktgrok]

That's the theory.

 

Then someone MEASURED the GLOBAL greenhouse effect over that period.  IT DID NOT INCREASE.

 

 

 

Could you be more specific as to what you mean by "greenhouse effect". Do you mean the concentration of greenhouse gases, the rise in temperature during that period, or something different?

[RegGuheert]

Where I live isn't relevent.  THe NOS is talking about ocean levels on a worldwide basis.

 

Here is the page where they adress sea level rise.

 

And this is the point - they provided the data map which led you to believe it didn't exist.  Yet, based on the same kinds of data sets, they say it does.  This suggests you just aren't knowledgable enough to be able to understand these kinds of data when you are looking through studies and posting all these things to prove your point.

 

In any case - I think this really is outside the scope of the thread - at best you can say you think this is controversial and shouldn't count as "fact" for searches like used on google, it is just too controversial.  What I would say is there are plenty of people and websites that are clearly presenting false information, or improperly understood information, and they will still appear in searches if you look for them specifically.

 

From your link:

 

 

Analysis of a global network of tide gauge records shows that sea level has been rising at the rate of about 0.6 inches per decade since 1900.

 

That's only 6 inches per century.

 

For reference here is what you wrote in a previous post:

 

I'm seeing sea level rise projections of way more than 2 inches - more like 2 meters.

 

But the reason I ask for where you live is that it various DRASTICALLY from place to place on the Earth.  In Sweden, they are concerned that some of their cities will be KILOMETERS from the shore in the not-to-distant future due to rapidly DROPPING sea level.

 

[Jen in NY]

FYI Diane Rehm's show today is about Fake News and its proliferation. You can stream a rebroadcast later today, usually sometime after noon.

It's interesting.

[SKL]

I think the pp's point about climate change is not that the theory of climate change is fake news, but that stories that dispute it are treated as fake news.  The fact is that it is still under debate among people knowledgeable enough and ethical enough to discuss it objectively.

 

As for "so many scientists independently reaching the same conclusion," there is not really that much independence in climate change studies.  They have to collaborate, because the cost of gathering the pertinent information is large.  Therefore they are all limited by the quality and integrity of whatever data they are sharing.  Also, the idea that there is no bias in science is ... well, a nice idea ....

 

But even assuming the highest integrity and ability among the scientists, there is still bias in what gets reported.  And again, there are significant financial and power interests in managing the climate change message.

[ktgrok]

Reg, I just clicked, after more coffee, on your first link to disprove the greenhouse effect. First, it was published in a major magazine, so hardly being suppressed. Second, it doesn't say that greenhouse effect isn't increasing, just that the rate of increase is slowing down, due NOT to anything to do with carbon, but due to increased la nina weather patterns, which change where on the planet warming is seen. And that since WHERE has a huge effect on how much the global temperature is raised, this has slowed down the increase .But that the increase is still happening. It's slowed down because of, among other things, cloud cover, volcanic eruptions, etc. 

 

That doesn't disprove climate change caused by carbon, methane, etc. And now I need a freaking nap. 

[SKL]

When I was in the army, I worked in an office for a while where CNN was on the ofice tv, right where I worked, all the time. 

 

It drove me nuts.

 

Even CBC or BBC would have been a little better.

 

My mom had major surgery and we all came into her hospital room afterwards, hoping for a sign that she got through the surgery all right.  She woke up and muttered, "change that channel [the TV was tuned to CNN].  $#&$%."  At that point we knew she had come through with all her faculties, LOL.

[Ravin]

That was never about "who".  It was only about "for what purpose".

 

Same reasoning that would allow one to decline baked goods with inappropriate images or slogans. 

 

 

A baker plays exactly ZERO role in what is done with the cake after it is purchased and delivered. I can buy a wedding cake and serve it at a wedding, or use it for a food fight, or throw it in the dumpster immediately if I want. It's none of the baker's business once the cake belongs to me.

 

Declining to bake a cake with an inappropriate image or slogan is the baker's right because the decoration on the cake is a form of speech, and as the person creating it, the baker has that right. NO ONE has ever suggested they don't.

[Ravin]

Oh, well, here we go again. Allow me to sum up the next 20 pages on this topic:

 

One Side - "We're right and here's the same three tired old arguments to prove it!"

The other side - "No, you're wrong, and our vastly superior arguments prove it!"

First Side - "Nuh-uh!"

Second Side - "Uh-huh! Also, you smell!"

First Side - "I'm rubber and you're glue!"

 

Moderators: Okay, let's lock this thread because you can't play nicely.

 

There, now that I've neatly summed up The Cake Wars, maybe we can skip this round. It is soooooo boring, guys. Can we please not go there for a change? Pretty please with a cherry on top?

 

Sometimes I just can't help myself. It's CAKE.  :drool5:

[Spy Car]

Reg, I just clicked, after more coffee, on your first link to disprove the greenhouse effect. First, it was published in a major magazine, so hardly being suppressed. Second, it doesn't say that greenhouse effect isn't increasing, just that the rate of increase is slowing down, due NOT to anything to do with carbon, but due to increased la nina weather patterns, which change where on the planet warming is seen. And that since WHERE has a huge effect on how much the global temperature is raised, this has slowed down the increase .But that the increase is still happening. It's slowed down because of, among other things, cloud cover, volcanic eruptions, etc. 

 

That doesn't disprove climate change caused by carbon, methane, etc. And now I need a freaking nap. 

 

De-bunking fake-news is exhausting.

 

Bill

[ktgrok]

De-bunking fake-news is exhausting.

 

Bill

 

Except this time the news article was real, it just didn't say what he said it said. A sentence that is confusing my addled brain. 

[RegGuheert]

Could you be more specific as to what you mean by "greenhouse effect". Do you mean the concentration of greenhouse gases, the rise in temperature during that period, or something different?

 

Sure.  The Earth attains an equilibrium temperature at some temperature at which the amount of infrared radiation leaving the Earth exactly matches the amount of longwave and shortwave radiation that are incident on the Earth (primarily from the Sun).  This temperature would be achieved only after a long time (many say more than 100 years).

 

Greenhouse gases and clouds act like a blanket and capture some of the infrared radiation that would normally go directly out to space.  That causes the greenhouse molecules to heat up.  The will either share that heat by warming other molecules in the atmosphere or by reradiating in some random direction.  When they reradiate, not all will be going in the original direction of what they received, so the tend to reduce the overall amount of heat lost from the Earth.  In other words, Greenhouse gases act a bit like a blanket in keeping your body from losing heat so quickly.

 

Water vapor is, by far, the most significant greenhouse gas on Earth, accounting for about 90% of the greenhouse effect.  Carbon dioxide is a far second at around 4%, IIRC.

 

BTW, clouds have a much more significant effect on the temperature of the Earth than any greenhouse gases by reflecting some of the incident sunlight.  A 1% change in global cloud cover has about 50X the impact on the energy budget for Earth than a doubling of CO2 theoretically does.  And the global cloud cover has been measured to move by 5 or 6% over decadal time frames.  (It is not constant.)

 

The measurement of the global greenhouse effect is done by measuring the total radiation out to space and the total radiation incident on the Earth and calculating the net flow of energy.  Typically, this number is reported in W/m^2.

 

ETA:

The measurement I linked previously measured ONLY the effects at infrared frequencies where water vapor and CO2 are dominant[/url].

/ETA:

 

FWIW, when scientific calculations have been published on the greenhouse effect, I have seen numbers such as 0.6 W/m^2.  What is interesting is that the error bars were something like + or - 14 W/m^2!!

Edited December 8, 2016 by RegGuheert

[Spy Car]

Except this time the news article was real, it just didn't say what he said it said. A sentence that is confusing my addled brain. 

 

I wasn't talking about the article ;)

 

Bill

[swimmermom3]

It's a fair point. Things haven't gotten better.

 

Every time Obama opens his mouth on clean energy and climate Big Oil freaks out and starts filing lawsuits. They fought tooth and nail against even injection drilling be limited in any way even though it is KNOWN it is causing earth quakes.

 

As long as "money is speech," and "corporations are people," nothing will ever change.

 

Trump tapped one of the worst people imaginable for the EPA. It isn't going to get better, it will get worse.

 

I was too tired last night and didn't finish my thought on this article.

 

This piece was written outside of the US and is critical of one aspect of our government/administration.  The issue is one that has global impact.

 

The article should be a talking point in the US and so far, our mainstream media has not picked up on it yet.  My optimistic reason for the delay is that it may take time and resources for US media to respond in a thoughtful and factual manner.  My cynical self wonders if it's possible that this may not fit into my favorite US sources' political narrative  that they feel is important to present at this point in time.

Edited December 8, 2016 by swimmermom3

[SKL]

I was too tired last night and didn't finish my thought on this article.

 

This piece was written outside of the US and is critical of one aspect of our government/administration.  The issue is one that has global impact.

 

The article should be a talking point in the US and so far, our mainstream media has not picked up on it yet.  My optimistic reason for the delay is that it may take time and resources for US media to respond in a thoughtful and factual manner.  My cynical self wonders if it's possible that this may not fit into my favorite US sources' political narrative  that they feel is important to present at this point in time.

 

The left-leaning mainstream sources would not want to sully their president's image.

 

The right-leaning sources would not want to give too much importance to environmental issues.

 

I am going to check the facebook page of a very radical left-left-left person I know.  Maybe the article found its way onto her fb page.  :)  ETA:  nope, not yet anyway.

Edited December 8, 2016 by SKL

[ktgrok]

 

Water vapor is, by far, the most significant greenhouse gas on Earth, accounting for about 90% of the greenhouse effect.  Carbon dioxide is a far second at around 4%, IIRC.

 

BTW, clouds have a much more significant effect on the temperature of the Earth than any greenhouse gases by reflecting some of the incident sunlight.  A 1% change in global cloud cover has about 50X the impact on the energy budget for Earth than a doubling of CO2 theoretically does.  And the global cloud cover has been measured to move by 5 or 6% over decadal time frames.  (It is not constant.)

 

The measurement of the global greenhouse effect is done by measuring the total radiation out to space and the total radiation incident on the Earth and calculating the net flow of energy.  Typically, this number is reported in W/m^2.

 

FWIW, when scientific calculations have been published on the greenhouse effect, I have seen numbers such as 0.6 W/m^2.  What is interesting is that the error bars were something like + or - 14 W/m^2!!

 

Ok, wasn't looking for what the greenhouse effect is, but which measurement you were talking about. So thanks. 

 

Did you read the part where the article said that the effect is in fact still increasing over the time period you talked about, just at a slower rate, due to several factors, including dryer conditions/less clouds, volcanos, and in bad news, warming of the oceans, which are absorbing some of that heat rather than it being radiated back out? 

 

None of that sounds like "hey, greenhouse effect isn't a problem". 

[TranquilMind]

Please can we give the wedding baker and the hobby lobby a nice little double funeral and bury the discussion right here? Please?

 

Just responding to someone's inaccurate analogy about this topic.  I didn't bring it up, and also mentioned that people would prefer not to discuss it in this thread and we could take it elsewhere. That's it.

 

[TranquilMind]

I've got all my lawmakers on speed dial - local, state, national. My plan is to be on top of them like white brown on rice.

 

 

I live on a coastline. I kinda like my city. I don't want it to flood again.

 

Heh heh.  That is the most believable thing I have read all day.

 

I think I would like you, even though we agree on almost nothing. 

 

;)

Edited December 8, 2016 by TranquilMind

[swimmermom3]

I can't speak for everyone else, but the thing is, since I am not a climate scientist, any facts I would cite would be of other people's/organizations' research. There are many studies that have collectively, over time, from unrelated sources, indicated that climate change is happening. I could look them up and post them here. Then, you will look up some study that will refute whatever I post, because there are websites that present studies that will refute climate change. So, fine. We could go back and forth. The thing is, the overwhelming weight of studies, undertaken by a hugely disparate number and type of scientists, over many years, has borne out, under scientific scrutiny, that climate change is happening. Since I am not a scientist or expert of any kind, I choose to trust the widely researched, widely funded, many non-connected, independent scientists that come to that conclusion instead of looking for much smaller number of entities pushing the opposite view.

 

If you are interested, research how the tobacco companies went about discrediting scientists and doctors that tried to sound early warning bells about health and smoking. It is instructive and well documented. Proof isn't necessary to give people an excuse to continue the status quo... just enough doubt to make rationalization possible.

 

This also comes back around to news/fake news. One journalist to read in this vein is Jane Mayer. I look forward to reading her latest book.

 

I had forgotten about Jane Mayer. Thanks so much. Her work is great!

 

[RegGuheert]

Ok, wasn't looking for what the greenhouse effect is, but which measurement you were talking about. So thanks. 

 

Did you read the part where the article said that the effect is in fact still increasing over the time period you talked about, just at a slower rate, due to several factors, including dryer conditions/less clouds, volcanos, and in bad news, warming of the oceans, which are absorbing some of that heat rather than it being radiated back out? 

 

None of that sounds like "hey, greenhouse effect isn't a problem". 

 

Yes.  But I know of no credible sources which considers the effects of CO2 to be significant in and of themselves.  What is required for there to be a problem is for CO2 to influence water vapor in a way which increases the overall heating effect by affecting other molecules, specifically water vapor.  That is what has been put forth, but there is significant evidence that increasing water vapor COOLS the Earth rather than warms it, for a large variety of reasons.

 

On top of that, as you mentioned, there are clouds.  They ABSOLUTELY dominate the energy flow on Earth. They are the great unknown.  Little is known about the formation of clouds.  Science is learning, but we are at the very beginning of understanding.

 

Simply put, fewer clouds means a warmer Earth.  Everything else is a secondary or even a tertiary effect.

 

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

 

 

Judith Curry believes that the impact of CO2 on temperature is significantly lower than the popular estimate and that very little warming is to be expected.  She has published papers to this effect.  She believes that there is little to fear from the release of CO2.

 

Here is a link to responses she made to congressmen in 2015.  Her responses there are pretty clear:

 

 

Those who want to know what Dr. Judith Curry believes should read her blog and her published works.

 

Let us say your proposition is right that CO2 has little impact and climate change is a hoax. That does not negate the fact that fossil fuels are not renewable in our lifetime let alone our grandkids and their grandkids lifetimes and is a limited resource. Secondly, extracting fossil fuels is known to very taxing on our environment by polluting waterways and our drinking water and the earth and by destroying ecosystems and even in some cases by causing earthquakes. The let us not forgot how burning fossil fuels does indeed cause air pollution besides CO2. Just look at the devastating poor air quality in China and India. Here in the US we once had major problems with air pollution as well such as in Los Angeles but thanks to the EPA that was cleaned up.

 

So to me, I don't care whether you believe in climate change but really you cannot deny the devastating impact of fossil fuels on our environment which is a fact. I say our government and private industry should invest heavily in renewable energy which is better for all of us and our planet.