quote:

It’s official: 2014 has taken the title of hottest year on record. That ranking comes courtesy of data released Monday by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), the first of four major global temperature recordkeepers to release their data for last year.

quote:

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

2014 was Third Warmest Year Since 1979, but Just Barely
(with input from John Christy and Phil Gentry)
...
2014 was the third warmest year in the 36-year global satellite temperature record, but by such a small margin (0.01 C) as to be statistically similar to other recent years, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. “2014 was warm, but not special. The 0.01 C difference between 2014 and 2005, or the 0.02 difference with 2013 are not statistically different from zero. That might not be a very satisfying conclusion, but it is at least accurate.”

Evil_Greven posted:

We're... #3? (BARELY, BARELY MADE IT, BARELY)

Must be headed for an ice age!

Evil_Greven posted:

Well, okay, some people already disagree

We're... #3? (BARELY, BARELY MADE IT, BARELY)

Must be headed for an ice age!

Friendly Tumour posted:

Personally I still don't quite understand how the so-called hiatus works into the climate models but yeah. Is everybody certain it's due to deep-ocean heatsinks?

ToxicSlurpee posted:

One of the biggest problems is that the Earth is actually pretty loving big. It's a very complex system that is difficult to measure with any sorts of exactness and I think that's part of why the deniers are having a field day with the information. There's a gently caress ton of info out there and you can manipulate it to justify all sorts of dumb opinions.

This is why you hear so much "CLIMATE SCIENTISTS DON'T AGREE!!!" bullshit. Which year is the hottest year depends on what you measure and how so they twist that into the scientists knowing nothing. Which is stupid, it's scientific fact at the moment that this rock we live on is heating up.

FAUXTON posted:

It doesn't help that there will always be publicity and wealth for anyone willing to whore their degree out, and the publicity and wealth will be in such quantity that scientific credibility becomes vestigial.

ToxicSlurpee posted:

One of the biggest problems is that the Earth is actually pretty loving big. It's a very complex system that is difficult to measure with any sorts of exactness and I think that's part of why the deniers are having a field day with the information. There's a gently caress ton of info out there and you can manipulate it to justify all sorts of dumb opinions.

This is why you hear so much "CLIMATE SCIENTISTS DON'T AGREE!!!" bullshit. Which year is the hottest year depends on what you measure and how so they twist that into the scientists knowing nothing. Which is stupid, it's scientific fact at the moment that this rock we live on is heating up.

DBlanK posted:

Who gives a poo poo if its getting warmer or cooler.
We are dumping loving POISON into the air and the water.
Can't we just recognize the will of the people to live a healthy and sustainable life?

Trabisnikof posted:

Uh CO2 is needed for plants to grow, checkmate greens.

Also burning as many fossil fuels as we can will allow us to grow our developing economies and actually give healthy and sustainable lives to millions if not billions. Every drop of unburnt crude is another glass of dirty drinking water some poor mother has to drink. Arguing against fossil fuels is the same as arguing that other people should starve to death so you would feel less personally guilty. Your choices are: hate the poor or love fossil fuels.





Alas I'm not even strawmanning.

i am harry posted:

Or poor people could have modern fuels like we give them modern medicines.

Trabisnikof posted:

Yes, lets give them the modern fuels that the developed world uses: coal, oil and gas.


There's a little book you all should read, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, its pretty much the best playbook for denying meaningful action on climate change.


edit: also mentioning modern medicine should get at least a 5 minute rant about how modern medicine would be impossible without oil, but my desire to play devil's advocate only goes so far.

blowfish posted:

To be fair: If the ~developed nations~, China, India, and probably Brazil went CO2 neutral and the least developed countries went 100% fossil fuel to twice their current energy consumption (from "almost nothing" to "very little") it would still be a major step forward, and buy time to introduce more expensive renewables/nuclear.

Trabisnikof posted:

Or we could just burn it all and assume we'll fix everything in the future since we go a lot more work done because of all our cheap pre-concentrated god-energy coming from the ground!

Trabisnikof posted:

Every drop of unburnt crude is another glass of dirty drinking water some poor mother has to drink.

rivetz posted:

There are literally and without exaggeration hundreds of thousands of scientists working either in climate science or in a field directly related to climate science. Can you name just ten scientists who have ascended to publicity and wealth as a result of their findings? I should ask for a thousand, or even a hundred, but I'll stick with one-hundredth of one percent for ya.

I have never been a fan of this line of thought. By and large, if scientists wanted to be celebrities that badly, they wouldn't have decided to become scientists in the first place. Sure, everyone would like to be famous, but this concept of scientists cheerfully hucking their academic credibility out the door and rolling into the sunset on a diamond-plated jet ski would be insulting if it wasn't so ludicrous. In my anecdotal experience, most (read: virtually all) of the researchers out there aren't rolling in dough, and the handful that are doing well aren't doing that well. Who gets into paleobotany for the phat paycheck, again?

Also, it's not like these pressures are unique to climate science. You don't think chemists have these opportunities to compromise, via Big Pharma? Or, say, physicists, via the military-industrial complex (small potatoes compared to the cash cow that is glaciology, admittedly.) Thus this all seems like a roundabout way of implying that scientists as a whole just can't be trusted, which imo is loving stupid.

E: I understand that you're not approaching this from the skeptic position; I still hate this line of thinking. How about "in virtually any field of work, there's going to be a very small sub-population of greedy assholes with no morals" vs "well that's the trouble with scientists, there's always that bling tempting em "

FAUXTON posted:

It's illegal for a judge to take bribes or a lawyer to throw a case but a scientist willing to just wave that paper around and push whatever bullshit they're paid to? Clean money.

Trabisnikof posted:

Do you have any data or evidence to support this believe that scientists can just be as corrupt as they want and no one cares?

Hello Sailor posted:

Trabisnikof posted:

I bet those people would have trouble speaking at AAAS


But yes, if the existence of the American Petroleum Institute means you feel all scientists are corrupt, then the API is doing their job.

FAUXTON posted:

Dude, I don't think all scientists are corrupt, I don't even think they're corruptible ad the average person because of what draws people into the field, goddamn.

Trabisnikof posted:

That's only true when those scientists are directly paid by a corporation asking them to shill.

FAUXTON posted:

Holy poo poo you get it now, that's exactly what I am saying - that scientists can go on the payroll of Fox or Heritage or whoever,

FAUXTON posted:

and be touted as having all of the credibility of their prior stature

quote:

Are you just hung up on the fact that I'm using the term "scientist" for a former-scientist-turned-shill?

Trabisnikof posted:

Yes.


Well, seeing how a scientist is one that does science, and what you describe aren't scientists, then yes. Just because someone calls themselves an expert or a scientist doesn't make them one. Just because someone has a BS in Psychology doesn't make them a scientist.

In fact, this weakening of the term scientist is a big part of the problem. By equating some talking head to scientific discourse you're strengthening their ability to counter research with dribble.

Trabisnikof posted:

In fact, this weakening of the term scientist is a big part of the problem. By equating some talking head to scientific discourse you're strengthening their ability to counter research with dribble.

FAUXTON posted:

So you are hung up on the fact that universities can't revoke PhDs to prevent shills from calling themselves doctors. Well then I apologize for calling former scientists scientists.

Nevvy Z posted:

You are nitpicking a word choice describing what ACTUALLY HAPPENS IN REALITY. No matter what you think of it a huge slew or morons reads "Harvard phd" and assumes its an expert, especially they are just looking for someone they can call an expert who already agrees with them. Acknowledging that this is happening in reality doesn't strengthen anything. You can go around declaring them not real scientists all you want but there's no one that's going to give a poo poo who doesn't already agree with you.

It's like talking in front of OWS or something.

Trabisnikof posted:

Besides, which "former scientists" are you exactly talking about? I'd love to see an example. Remember, having an MS doesn't make you a scientist just like having an MA doesn't make you an artist.

rivetz posted:

I have never been a fan of this line of thought. By and large, if scientists wanted to be celebrities that badly, they wouldn't have decided to become scientists in the first place. Sure, everyone would like to be famous, but this concept of scientists cheerfully hucking their academic credibility out the door and rolling into the sunset on a diamond-plated jet ski would be insulting if it wasn't so ludicrous. In my anecdotal experience, most (read: virtually all) of the researchers out there aren't rolling in dough, and the handful that are doing well aren't doing that well. Who gets into paleobotany for the phat paycheck, again?

Also, it's not like these pressures are unique to climate science. You don't think chemists have these opportunities to compromise, via Big Pharma? Or, say, physicists, via the military-industrial complex (small potatoes compared to the cash cow that is glaciology, admittedly.) Thus this all seems like a roundabout way of implying that scientists as a whole just can't be trusted, which imo is loving stupid.

E: I understand that you're not approaching this from the skeptic position; I still hate this line of thinking. How about "in virtually any field of work, there's going to be a very small sub-population of greedy assholes with no morals" vs "well that's the trouble with scientists, there's always that bling tempting em "

FAUXTON posted:

Murray Rothbard and all those other Austrian/Ancap shitheels trying to dress up political punditry as economic science (which itself is debatable as a science due to political proximity by nature)

Trabisnikof posted:

Well, seeing how I never accused you of that great job defending yourself.

But you did claim that "a scientist willing to just wave that paper around and push whatever bullshit they're paid to" can get away with it. That's only true when those scientists are directly paid by a corporation asking them to shill.

You're arguing that its "legitimate" to lie about scientific studies which is flatly wrong. People lose their jobs just for failing to disclose a conflict of interest.

Also you're pretty much forgetting that modern science uses the peer review process as a counter against these supposed "tremendous" pressure scientists are under to be corrupt.

tsa posted:

But there are a lot of problems in pharmaceutical trials being done poorly or incorrectly, there's tons of literature being written on this now. Anyway why bring up some field like paleobotany? Something like statistics would be much more relevant to the topic of this thread, and yes, academic statisticians do pretty drat well. Like 500+k / year well if they are willing to work with the right people. Not all of academia is poor people.

Also funny you bring up physics, remember Purdue bubble fusion from the early 2000's? There is an enormous amount of pressure for a scientist to essentially be a 'celebrity' in their field.

Trabisnikof posted:

Yes, lets give them the modern fuels that the developed world uses: coal, oil and gas.

edit: also mentioning modern medicine should get at least a 5 minute rant about how modern medicine would be impossible without oil, but my desire to play devil's advocate only goes so far.

i am harry posted:

I meant it more like youre suggesting we treat poors with leeches, metaphorically.

IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:

Ahoy goons with some actual knowledge on this subject:

What, if any, is the current consensus on the best route to mitigate the damage of climate change for individual nations?

a. Focus on reducing the release of greenhouse gasses, thereby hopefully reducing the severity of the climate change

b. Focus on preparing for the inevitable climate change associated problems: build bigger dykes, increase freshwater production facilities, expand irrigation and agriculture etc.

c. A mix of xx% option a and xx% option b?

I'd think that relying on option a is at this point mostly wish-full thinking and that b should is the most pragmatic approach on a per nation basis.