7 ms·

Be transparent with the data. Stop making adjustments that are questionable and coincidentally result in increased warming. Stop blacklisting scientists who dis

Be transparent with the data. Stop making adjustments that are questionable and coincidentally result in increased warming. Stop blacklisting scientists who disagree with the consensus. Stop getting hacked and releasing emails showing people discussing how to "hide the decline". Stop gaming peer review by having the papers reviewed by a group of people who all agree. Stop making hyperbolic predictions about the future which are completely falsifiable and indeed end up to be false. Stop insisting that the models are completely accurate even though they have been completely inaccurate thus far. Stop accusing people who have questions about mitigation strategies as "climate deniers". That would be a good start.

woodandsteel 9y ago
The commenter seems to be saying that if the clmate scientists did all those things he prescribes and the data showed the world is getting hotter, he would believe them. However, I think that is not at all what he really thinks. To start, he lays out a pattern of purposeful deception that it would make sense for the climate scientists to do only if they knew the data actually shows the world is not getting hotter. But how can the commenter know that unless he already knows that this is in fact the case? And on what basis could he know that if the true data is hidden? My best guess is the commenter is a fanatic believer in conservative economic theory, which assumes that nature must be such that it is possible for the free market to expand without limit without governmental regulation and in the process bring only good to the human race.
graeme 9y ago
Falsiable predictions are the right kind to make. An u falsiable hypothesis is not one you can test. Who has said models are completely accurate? They're just estimates. (They can be under-estimates as well) From what you say, it sounds like you don't think temperature is increasing. Is that correct?
- jeremyt 9y ago
  No, I think that the data has been adjusted, sometimes purposefully and sometimes unknowingly, in a direction which results in more warming due to the peer pressure involved. Some of the adjustments are justifiable and some are questionable. Sometimes, the adjustments need to be adjusted because of additional changes in the environment. Sometimes this gets done and sometimes it doesn't. Then, we have scientists who make models which should be falsifiable, but instead of declaring that the models don't work when they fail to match reality, they make adjustments to "fit the curve". Anyone who has dealt with models before knows that you can make any number of adjustments to fit any curve you want. After the adjustments, the models continue to be inaccurate. Sometimes, suspiciously, the models become more accurate in the near term but still predict the same huge temperature rise in the future. Then, the activists on the left take the current claims made by science and extend them as far as possible. This is then stated as fact. See: Al Gore. Said activists use "97% consensus" to defend their hyperbolic claims, mostly knowing that the 97% consensus doesn't apply to their exaggerations. These "facts" are then used as justifications for massive government involvement in the economy, which just so happens to line up with the political wishes of the left.
  - Oletros 9y ago
    > No, I think that the data has been adjusted, sometimes purposefully and sometimes unknowingly, in a direction which results in more warming due to the peer pressure involved. Any example of those pressures? > Then, we have scientists who make models which should be falsifiable, but instead of declaring that the models don't work when they fail to match reality, they make adjustments to "fit the curve". Any example of those fittings? A lot of talking of "the left" like demons but none of you can't give just one example of those falsifications. Perhaps because there is none and "some right" is just inventing them?
    - jeremyt 9y ago
      I looked into this deeply about six months ago. I don't remember the specifics. There's a paper out there where two completely separate groups of scientists disagree with each other on what the adjustments to the data should be. These are not alarmist versus deniers, these are both alarmist scientists who think it's a big problem. They both can't be correct. Someone is making incorrect adjustments. As to the models, when the models failed to predict reality, they should have been thrown out. But they keep turning out revision after revision of the models, which continue to fail to predict the future. You cannot claim that models are predictive of anything until they have successfully predicted actual reality, but what these scientists are doing are saying "well, the models didn't predict well, but we made adjustments and now they predict better), which means nothing. For all we know, the adjustments could've made the predictions worse. The other side defends by stating that the models are the best we have, but I would argue that they are worse than nothing. They have gone from being wildly inaccurate, to just somewhat inaccurate. Of course I don't have any proof, because the internal deliberations are not public, the code for the models is not public, and the revisions to the data and models are not public. Frankly, I'd be very happy if they would release the source code for the models so we could see what a clusterfuck they are.
      - Oletros 9y ago
        > As to the models, when the models failed to predict reality, they should have been thrown out. What models have failed to predict reality?, all the models have failed? > Of course I don't have any proof, because the internal deliberations are not public, the code for the models is not public, and the revisions to the data and models are not public. Really? > Frankly, I'd be very happy if they would release the source code for the models so we could see what a clusterfuck they are. So, you don't have any proof, you don't know that the IPCC models have been aligned with reality but you claim that they are a clusterfuck. I think that you didn't look very deeply, or perhaps, you deep only on some sites that are not very scientifics.
anigbrowl 9y ago
No half-truths or conspiracy theories here, folks!
Oletros 9y ago
> Be transparent with the data. In which way the data is not transparent? > Stop making adjustments that are questionable and coincidentally result in increased warming. Please, any example of questionable adjustements? > Stop blacklisting scientists who disagree with the consensus. Any example of scientist blacklisted? Stop getting hacked and releasing emails showing people discussing how to "hide the decline". I think you didn't read what the emails were about, becuse your claim is wrong. > Stop gaming peer review by having the papers reviewed by a group of people who all agree. Are you accusing of fraud? Any example, please? Stop making hyperbolic predictions about the future which are completely falsifiable and indeed end up to be false. > Stop insisting that the models are completely accurate even though they have been completely inaccurate thus far. Apart that nobody say that models are completely accurate, please, any source of your claim that "all of them have been copletely innacurate"? > Stop accusing people who have questions about mitigation strategies as "climate deniers". You don't have questions. You're plainly accusing everyone of fraud, deception and cheating.
- stevejb 9y ago
  >> Stop gaming peer review by having the papers reviewed by a group of people who all agree. > Are you accusing of fraud? Any example, please? Your response to this sentence is what feeds the problem. It is completely fair to point out, in the context of this discussion, flaws in the process that produces some of this research. The parent was pointing out, in the sentence, one problem with the process which produces scientific papers. This is certainly a discussion that needs to be had, and responding in this way which is dismissive is exactly what the parent was saying. Science needs to be scientific about the publishing process. And yes, literally complete gibberish has been published before: https://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763 https://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-12... The academic peer review process is far from perfect, and the incentives of the humans involved does not necessarily align with producing the most accurate science.
  - Oletros 9y ago
    No, the problem is the sentence. Will you say that peer review papers about quantum mechanics are rigged because they are reviewed by a group of people who all agree that eveolution is real? Will you say that peer review papers about Evolution are rigged because they are reviewed by a group of people who all agree that eveolution is real? > The academic peer review process is far from perfect, and the incentives of the humans involved does not necessarily align with producing the most accurate science And this is another subtle accusation of fraud. Do you have any proof of climate science papers are rigged? > This is certainly a discussion that needs to be had, and responding in this way which is dismissive is exactly what the parent was saying No, the parent was saying that climate papers are wrong beacuse the papers are only reviewed by people that think that climate change is real.
beat 9y ago
Stop drawing your curves and then plotting your data to match your assumptions. Stop attributing data that doesn't match your assumptions to conspiracy.
accountyaccount 9y ago
It's kind of sad that you think accuracy is the reason conservatives hate liberal ideas (sad because I know you're trying your best to help here). You're talking about a political base that is currently thriving almost entirely on spite and a total absence of fact. They don't give a shit how accurate your x-axis is labeled, they're at the point where in some circles they discredit science as a concept.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- malandrew 9y ago
  > they're at the point where in some circles they discredit science as a concept. Because the left has politicized science. Science should be apolitical. Many on the left do not fail to provide those on the right justifications for dismissing science outright. This will not be fixed until those on the left with a high respect for the impartiality of science start to condemn those on the left that abuse that science to further their message. The right discrediting science as a concept is the effect, not the cause.
  - UncleMeat 9y ago
    Several state legislatures have made it illegal for climate scientists to testify in their chambers. And the left is politicizing science?
    - okreallywtf 9y ago
      Can you cite a specific example? I know of some political attacks against climate science, this for example [1]. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/north-carolina-state-hiding-climate-science-2014-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/north-carolina-state-hiding-c...
  - fweespeech 9y ago
    > Because the left has politicized science. Science should be apolitical. Many on the left do not fail to provide those on the right justifications for dismissing science outright. This will not be fixed until those on the left with a high respect for the impartiality of science start to condemn those on the left that abuse that science to further their message. No. The fact the Right has moved so far past the center that they can't find facts to support their positions has resulted in the Right politicizing science and when that fails they ban information from being used and/or removing them from advisory boards. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/florida-has-seen-bad-effects-from-trump-like-climate-gag-orders/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/florida-has-seen-... > North Carolina, whose barrier islands are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, was widely mocked in 2012 when the General Assembly passed a law barring communities from using a report containing 100-year projections of sea level rise—up to 39 inches—in their planning. Three years later a compromise was reached; legislators found a new report with a 30-year time horizon less alarming, and agreed that was permissible. > In the interim, though, coastal planning lagged. Under then-Governor Pat McCrory (R), climate change information disappeared from the state’s Department of Environmental Quality Web site. The legislature altered the makeup of the Coastal Resources Commission, which overseas coastal planning, to remove some scientists and conservation group representatives and replaced them with more business-friendly members.
sliverstorm 9y ago
The adjustments thing probably can't go away entirely, it seems like anytime you try to combine many distinct historical datasets you need normalizing adjustments. For example, the man who empirically determined the normal human body temperature was, as best we can tell, using a thermometer that read too warm. (http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/08/the_average_body_temperature_is_not_986_degrees.html http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/08/the_average_bod...) Even with the same nominal weather station recording over the years: Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once. They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record. -- https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/08/no-climate-conspiracy-noaa-temperature-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97... So, in summary, it's virtually impossible to combine a bazillion datapoints recorded over hundreds of years and not need adjustments.
- basurihn 9y ago
  The data points become invalid. You can't just adjust them to become valid, then you are no longer measuring. You are telling the data what to be. There is no math that can do this, which is WHY apolitical physicists/engineers/mathtypes mock climate science. When doctors tell you normal body temperature is 98 degrees they are dumbing it down for you, instead of relying on bad sampling from the past. Not that medical science is that great either.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    How do they become invalid? Suppose a station uses a mercury thermometer for the first 80 years then switches to a thermocouple, with an overlap of 10 years were both thermometers are run side-by-side. Suppose also that it shows that the old thermometer consistently reads 0.25° warmer than the digital one, and that calibration tests show that the new thermometer is accurate. Do all of the old data points get thrown out of the window? What's wrong with adjusting the old temperatures by 0.25°?
treehau5 9y ago
Also, stop thinking that the greenhouse effect doesn't apply on a planetary scale and stop thinking we don't produce more carbon than ever existed in human existence and thinking that it is some "mere coincidence" or just "natural"
yongjik 9y ago
> Stop getting hacked and releasing emails showing people discussing how to "hide the decline". Victim blaming much? Also, the infamous "hide the decline" is not what you believe it is. The point has been explained thoroughly by so many people, I don't feel the need to repeat it here. That's like someone taking a phrase from Linus's mail saying "this nice trick allows us to hide the latency in module XXX", and then running to the press saying "Linux is hiding its latency issues! Linus himself said that!" Of course, what's unbelievable is that some people are willing to fall for that.
okreallywtf 9y ago
What mitigation strategies? You say that as if someone is trying to push some agenda that hurts you, we're not even to that point because we can't agree that the sky is blue and the planet is warming. Nobody is limiting your power use or instating curfews, you can have all the incandescent light bulbs you want and 5 TV's if you can afford the power bill. We're fighting right now (in the US that is, no where else for the most part) to move the gasoline further from the open flame, thats it. The only thing of note happening is the move (almost entirely driven by private enterprise) from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The worst case scenario of this switch is that the planet might continue increasing in temperature, albeit slower, but we'll have cleaner air (yes I know there are environmental considerations for renewables as well, but those issues can and will be worked through with time).
fweespeech 9y ago
> Stop gaming peer review by having the papers reviewed by a group of people who all agree. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ > Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. When you have 97% agreement on a subject its difficult to guarantee the 3% is represented in every peer review. That isn't "gaming" the system. That is just the reality of how Science works across the board. You aren't going to magically find a small, vocal minority has the bandwidth and numbers to be represented 50% of the time like you find in politics.

woodandsteel 9y ago

The commenter seems to be saying that if the clmate scientists did all those things he prescribes and the data showed the world is getting hotter, he would believe them. However, I think that is not at all what he really thinks. To start, he lays out a pattern of purposeful deception that it would make sense for the climate scientists to do only if they knew the data actually shows the world is not getting hotter. But how can the commenter know that unless he already knows that this is in fact the case? And on what basis could he know that if the true data is hidden? My best guess is the commenter is a fanatic believer in conservative economic theory, which assumes that nature must be such that it is possible for the free market to expand without limit without governmental regulation and in the process bring only good to the human race.

graeme 9y ago

Falsiable predictions are the right kind to make. An u falsiable hypothesis is not one you can test. Who has said models are completely accurate? They're just estimates. (They can be under-estimates as well) From what you say, it sounds like you don't think temperature is increasing. Is that correct?

jeremyt 9y ago
No, I think that the data has been adjusted, sometimes purposefully and sometimes unknowingly, in a direction which results in more warming due to the peer pressure involved. Some of the adjustments are justifiable and some are questionable. Sometimes, the adjustments need to be adjusted because of additional changes in the environment. Sometimes this gets done and sometimes it doesn't. Then, we have scientists who make models which should be falsifiable, but instead of declaring that the models don't work when they fail to match reality, they make adjustments to "fit the curve". Anyone who has dealt with models before knows that you can make any number of adjustments to fit any curve you want. After the adjustments, the models continue to be inaccurate. Sometimes, suspiciously, the models become more accurate in the near term but still predict the same huge temperature rise in the future. Then, the activists on the left take the current claims made by science and extend them as far as possible. This is then stated as fact. See: Al Gore. Said activists use "97% consensus" to defend their hyperbolic claims, mostly knowing that the 97% consensus doesn't apply to their exaggerations. These "facts" are then used as justifications for massive government involvement in the economy, which just so happens to line up with the political wishes of the left.
- Oletros 9y ago
  > No, I think that the data has been adjusted, sometimes purposefully and sometimes unknowingly, in a direction which results in more warming due to the peer pressure involved. Any example of those pressures? > Then, we have scientists who make models which should be falsifiable, but instead of declaring that the models don't work when they fail to match reality, they make adjustments to "fit the curve". Any example of those fittings? A lot of talking of "the left" like demons but none of you can't give just one example of those falsifications. Perhaps because there is none and "some right" is just inventing them?
  - jeremyt 9y ago
    I looked into this deeply about six months ago. I don't remember the specifics. There's a paper out there where two completely separate groups of scientists disagree with each other on what the adjustments to the data should be. These are not alarmist versus deniers, these are both alarmist scientists who think it's a big problem. They both can't be correct. Someone is making incorrect adjustments. As to the models, when the models failed to predict reality, they should have been thrown out. But they keep turning out revision after revision of the models, which continue to fail to predict the future. You cannot claim that models are predictive of anything until they have successfully predicted actual reality, but what these scientists are doing are saying "well, the models didn't predict well, but we made adjustments and now they predict better), which means nothing. For all we know, the adjustments could've made the predictions worse. The other side defends by stating that the models are the best we have, but I would argue that they are worse than nothing. They have gone from being wildly inaccurate, to just somewhat inaccurate. Of course I don't have any proof, because the internal deliberations are not public, the code for the models is not public, and the revisions to the data and models are not public. Frankly, I'd be very happy if they would release the source code for the models so we could see what a clusterfuck they are.
    - Oletros 9y ago
      > As to the models, when the models failed to predict reality, they should have been thrown out. What models have failed to predict reality?, all the models have failed? > Of course I don't have any proof, because the internal deliberations are not public, the code for the models is not public, and the revisions to the data and models are not public. Really? > Frankly, I'd be very happy if they would release the source code for the models so we could see what a clusterfuck they are. So, you don't have any proof, you don't know that the IPCC models have been aligned with reality but you claim that they are a clusterfuck. I think that you didn't look very deeply, or perhaps, you deep only on some sites that are not very scientifics.

anigbrowl 9y ago

No half-truths or conspiracy theories here, folks!

Oletros 9y ago

> Be transparent with the data. In which way the data is not transparent? > Stop making adjustments that are questionable and coincidentally result in increased warming. Please, any example of questionable adjustements? > Stop blacklisting scientists who disagree with the consensus. Any example of scientist blacklisted? Stop getting hacked and releasing emails showing people discussing how to "hide the decline". I think you didn't read what the emails were about, becuse your claim is wrong. > Stop gaming peer review by having the papers reviewed by a group of people who all agree. Are you accusing of fraud? Any example, please? Stop making hyperbolic predictions about the future which are completely falsifiable and indeed end up to be false. > Stop insisting that the models are completely accurate even though they have been completely inaccurate thus far. Apart that nobody say that models are completely accurate, please, any source of your claim that "all of them have been copletely innacurate"? > Stop accusing people who have questions about mitigation strategies as "climate deniers". You don't have questions. You're plainly accusing everyone of fraud, deception and cheating.

stevejb 9y ago
>> Stop gaming peer review by having the papers reviewed by a group of people who all agree. > Are you accusing of fraud? Any example, please? Your response to this sentence is what feeds the problem. It is completely fair to point out, in the context of this discussion, flaws in the process that produces some of this research. The parent was pointing out, in the sentence, one problem with the process which produces scientific papers. This is certainly a discussion that needs to be had, and responding in this way which is dismissive is exactly what the parent was saying. Science needs to be scientific about the publishing process. And yes, literally complete gibberish has been published before: https://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763 https://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-12... The academic peer review process is far from perfect, and the incentives of the humans involved does not necessarily align with producing the most accurate science.
- Oletros 9y ago
  No, the problem is the sentence. Will you say that peer review papers about quantum mechanics are rigged because they are reviewed by a group of people who all agree that eveolution is real? Will you say that peer review papers about Evolution are rigged because they are reviewed by a group of people who all agree that eveolution is real? > The academic peer review process is far from perfect, and the incentives of the humans involved does not necessarily align with producing the most accurate science And this is another subtle accusation of fraud. Do you have any proof of climate science papers are rigged? > This is certainly a discussion that needs to be had, and responding in this way which is dismissive is exactly what the parent was saying No, the parent was saying that climate papers are wrong beacuse the papers are only reviewed by people that think that climate change is real.

beat 9y ago

Stop drawing your curves and then plotting your data to match your assumptions. Stop attributing data that doesn't match your assumptions to conspiracy.

accountyaccount 9y ago

It's kind of sad that you think accuracy is the reason conservatives hate liberal ideas (sad because I know you're trying your best to help here). You're talking about a political base that is currently thriving almost entirely on spite and a total absence of fact. They don't give a shit how accurate your x-axis is labeled, they're at the point where in some circles they discredit science as a concept.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
malandrew 9y ago
> they're at the point where in some circles they discredit science as a concept. Because the left has politicized science. Science should be apolitical. Many on the left do not fail to provide those on the right justifications for dismissing science outright. This will not be fixed until those on the left with a high respect for the impartiality of science start to condemn those on the left that abuse that science to further their message. The right discrediting science as a concept is the effect, not the cause.
- UncleMeat 9y ago
  Several state legislatures have made it illegal for climate scientists to testify in their chambers. And the left is politicizing science?
  - okreallywtf 9y ago
    Can you cite a specific example? I know of some political attacks against climate science, this for example [1]. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/north-carolina-state-hiding-climate-science-2014-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/north-carolina-state-hiding-c...
- fweespeech 9y ago
  > Because the left has politicized science. Science should be apolitical. Many on the left do not fail to provide those on the right justifications for dismissing science outright. This will not be fixed until those on the left with a high respect for the impartiality of science start to condemn those on the left that abuse that science to further their message. No. The fact the Right has moved so far past the center that they can't find facts to support their positions has resulted in the Right politicizing science and when that fails they ban information from being used and/or removing them from advisory boards. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/florida-has-seen-bad-effects-from-trump-like-climate-gag-orders/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/florida-has-seen-... > North Carolina, whose barrier islands are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, was widely mocked in 2012 when the General Assembly passed a law barring communities from using a report containing 100-year projections of sea level rise—up to 39 inches—in their planning. Three years later a compromise was reached; legislators found a new report with a 30-year time horizon less alarming, and agreed that was permissible. > In the interim, though, coastal planning lagged. Under then-Governor Pat McCrory (R), climate change information disappeared from the state’s Department of Environmental Quality Web site. The legislature altered the makeup of the Coastal Resources Commission, which overseas coastal planning, to remove some scientists and conservation group representatives and replaced them with more business-friendly members.

sliverstorm 9y ago

The adjustments thing probably can't go away entirely, it seems like anytime you try to combine many distinct historical datasets you need normalizing adjustments. For example, the man who empirically determined the normal human body temperature was, as best we can tell, using a thermometer that read too warm. (http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/08/the_average_body_temperature_is_not_986_degrees.html http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/08/the_average_bod...) Even with the same nominal weather station recording over the years: Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once. They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record. -- https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/08/no-climate-conspiracy-noaa-temperature-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97... So, in summary, it's virtually impossible to combine a bazillion datapoints recorded over hundreds of years and not need adjustments.

basurihn 9y ago
The data points become invalid. You can't just adjust them to become valid, then you are no longer measuring. You are telling the data what to be. There is no math that can do this, which is WHY apolitical physicists/engineers/mathtypes mock climate science. When doctors tell you normal body temperature is 98 degrees they are dumbing it down for you, instead of relying on bad sampling from the past. Not that medical science is that great either.
- eesmith 9y ago
  How do they become invalid? Suppose a station uses a mercury thermometer for the first 80 years then switches to a thermocouple, with an overlap of 10 years were both thermometers are run side-by-side. Suppose also that it shows that the old thermometer consistently reads 0.25° warmer than the digital one, and that calibration tests show that the new thermometer is accurate. Do all of the old data points get thrown out of the window? What's wrong with adjusting the old temperatures by 0.25°?

treehau5 9y ago

Also, stop thinking that the greenhouse effect doesn't apply on a planetary scale and stop thinking we don't produce more carbon than ever existed in human existence and thinking that it is some "mere coincidence" or just "natural"

yongjik 9y ago

> Stop getting hacked and releasing emails showing people discussing how to "hide the decline". Victim blaming much? Also, the infamous "hide the decline" is not what you believe it is. The point has been explained thoroughly by so many people, I don't feel the need to repeat it here. That's like someone taking a phrase from Linus's mail saying "this nice trick allows us to hide the latency in module XXX", and then running to the press saying "Linux is hiding its latency issues! Linus himself said that!" Of course, what's unbelievable is that some people are willing to fall for that.

okreallywtf 9y ago

What mitigation strategies? You say that as if someone is trying to push some agenda that hurts you, we're not even to that point because we can't agree that the sky is blue and the planet is warming. Nobody is limiting your power use or instating curfews, you can have all the incandescent light bulbs you want and 5 TV's if you can afford the power bill. We're fighting right now (in the US that is, no where else for the most part) to move the gasoline further from the open flame, thats it. The only thing of note happening is the move (almost entirely driven by private enterprise) from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The worst case scenario of this switch is that the planet might continue increasing in temperature, albeit slower, but we'll have cleaner air (yes I know there are environmental considerations for renewables as well, but those issues can and will be worked through with time).

fweespeech 9y ago

> Stop gaming peer review by having the papers reviewed by a group of people who all agree. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ > Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. When you have 97% agreement on a subject its difficult to guarantee the 3% is represented in every peer review. That isn't "gaming" the system. That is just the reality of how Science works across the board. You aren't going to magically find a small, vocal minority has the bandwidth and numbers to be represented 50% of the time like you find in politics.