5 ms·

Quite right, like this [1] 100% factual not at all bullshit scientifically sound article on climate change. Thought provoking indeed. [1]https://www.zerohedge.

Quite right, like this [1] 100% factual not at all bullshit scientifically sound article on climate change. Thought provoking indeed. [1]https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-05/5-surprising-scientific-facts-about-earths-climate https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-05/5-surprising-scien...

setr 7y ago
..? I’m not seeing anything on that page that isn’t based on “facts”, and none of it seems obviously incorrect..
- graeme 7y ago
  It says co2 doesn't impact temperature: "While most of the current climatologists who collaborate with the United Nations believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions have exacerbated natural warming in recent decades, there is no empirical proof to support their claim. The only way to test it would be to wait and see if their assumptions come true. The entire climate fraternity was in for a surprise when global temperature between 2000 and 2016 failed to rise as anticipated by the climate alarmists. The scientists assumed that rising CO2 emissions from human activity would result in a rapid rise in temperature, but they didn’t. This proved that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not the primary factor controlling global temperature. Consideration of a much longer period (10,000 or more years) suggests that CO2 had no significant role to play in temperature increases. CO2 never was the temperature control knob."
  - stanfordkid 7y ago
    The thing with ZeroHedge is that you will see an article like this alongside another one like this: https://www.zerohedge.com/health/temperatures-pacific-ocean-have-shot-dangerous-levels-and-scientists-are-blaming-strange https://www.zerohedge.com/health/temperatures-pacific-ocean-... It is in aggregate an extreme blog with narratives that are non-consensus. So, yes, climate denial fits in that box, but it will also have articles on climate apocalypse. In aggregate I find it to be fairly eye-opening and bring to light ideas that are forgotten by mainstream media. It also has a healthy disregard for any form of consensus reality or authority. Furthermore, in the very article you linked there is a link to a NATURE commentary: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf Of course, we should leave it to experts to interpret a scientific paper such as this one, but my perception is that reporters do not always get it right. In all of the NYTimes you just hear the consensus from organizations such as the UN, I have yet to see an interview with an author of a paper such as the one mentioned above.
    - graeme 7y ago
      Ironically this seems a good case of gelman amnesia. If you think he's wrong on climate (a MAJOR thing to be wrong about), why would you trust his opinion on subjects where you know less? ------ I didn't link the article, I just reply to the comment asking what was wrong. But he's very much wrong and that nature article doesn't support him. He said CO2 did not lead to a rise in temperature. That article says there was a lower than expected rise in temperature - it's still rose! He said co2 has no significant impact on temperature which is definitely not what that paper is saying. They refer to co2 as anthropogenic forcing. Full text is here: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/...
    - patthebunny 7y ago
      Right, that's the sort of bullshit that media has always pulled. Give equal time to both sides, even when one side is blatantly full of shit. It's ridiculous.
  - setr 7y ago
    The main thrust there is that CO2 is not the primary motivator, but instead something else is; which they provide some supporting links for (which I haven’t bothered to review). And that CO2 not being “proven” as the primary motivator due to lack of testing is also trivially true — we only have the one earth to test on, so we test on models; and our understanding of earth is hardly complete, and so too must be our model. The conclusions may be “wrong” but at least that article is hardly making things up as they go along
  - swsieber 7y ago
    At that's patently false? Reading through the supporting material it seems like a pretty good point - CO2 follows, not drives temperature. https://cornwallalliance.org/2012/12/carbon-dioxide-and-air-temperature-who-leads-and-who-follows/ https://cornwallalliance.org/2012/12/carbon-dioxide-and-air-...
    - graeme 7y ago
      That's from the article. The author of that post has had virtually all of his work funded by the oil industry. That doesn't make him wrong, but it does raise questions. There are also few who agree with his stance. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/26/uds-david-legates-caught-climate-change-controversy/24090273/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/26/uds-david-leg... Fully examining arguments against Legates would be a lot of work, but here's a discussion of his most recent paper. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jun/03/research-downplaying-impending-global-warming-is-overturned https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
      - swsieber 7y ago
        That has virtually nothing about his claims, just his funding. And while the source of funding is important, I'd love to see an analysis of the actual claims/science.
        graeme 7y ago
        Oops, my mistake. I meant to link two articles, left off the second. This is the one I was referring to with my final para. Will edit my comment above if I can https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jun/03/research-downplaying-impending-global-warming-is-overturned https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
        swsieber 7y ago
        Many thanks :)
- baybal2 7y ago
  Reminds me of Yahoo during the first dotcom bubble. Every commentator/speculator was drooling at the possibility of "boring" Yahoo going bust, despite Yahoo being the most sound business in the dotcom space, and ignoring walking warning signs like Pets.com.
- JaimeThompson 7y ago
  ZH does have a lot of conspiracy type articles that directly state that major world changing events aren't really and that we are being lied to about them which makes me question how much they of what they produce is based on facts and how much is based on their conspiratorial way of thinking. It makes it hard to trust what they are saying sometimes.
- patthebunny 7y ago
  > Polar Bears and Other Species Are Not Dying But Flourishing Lets base it on reports of a couple of big name species and declare everything is fine. Facts! if you read zerohedge you have long since decided that facts do not at all matter to you.
  - prepend 7y ago
    Does it make a claim that everything is fine? I find it curious how remarking that polar bears aren’t dying out should mean that there’s not lots of other species in trouble, not to mention tons of other things that have problems. Despite polar bears improving.
smackay 7y ago
Indeed nothing particularly controversial there and nothing that says that warming on a global scale is not happening. Take the point that climates have always changed. Most definitely. However the concern has always been the rate at which warming is occurring. Given that humans and agriculture have fragmented the natural habitat and hence the ranges of species, the primary concern is the ability of species to adapt. I know that's too subtle a point for mainstream media to digest but it's pretty fundamental in describing the problem. For example, if you are a Brown Bear in northern Spain or the Pyrenees there's nowhere to go. You could do the same for the other points. All verifiable. It's only once you start adding the consequences that things start to look a little problematic.
robbiep 7y ago
3 and 4 are certainly false; whilst 1 and 2 are true, the end result of any change to the status quo of our environment (ie sea levels) is that society simply can’t afford a 7-70m rise in sea levels. Whether or not you ‘believe’ and this isn’t a religious perspective, this should be well accepted science by now, is that we are causing a change we can’t affoed; and even if we aren’t causing it, it looks like ‘factor x’ is, and we as a civilisation should do all we can to avoid it
- smackay 7y ago
  4 could easily be true also. If I am a Polar Bear hunter but I can't travel so far in search of my quarry because the ice is melting and can't support the weight of my snowmobile then bear numbers could indeed rise. Whether they continue to rise as temperatures increase is anyone's guess. In the end it matters little if the planet is warming from natural or man-made causes. If the environment is sufficiently degraded that things start to come apart then everything is in trouble.
chispers 7y ago
After reading the Zerohedge blog for sometime now, I trained myself to spend time on posts Authored by Tyler Durden and avoid posts Authored by affiliated sites. In general you get some value when you read posts directly authored by Tyler Durden.
briandear 7y ago
It seems like anything even remotely threatening the climate change gospel is treated just as the Catholic Church treated heretics centuries ago. AGW has ascended (descended?) into religious territory where even the slightest criticism of the “truth” is treated as blasphemous. It’s like many of the climate alarmists have turned into old school evangelicals that avoid wine and dancing out of fear it’ll rile up the devil. Except in the climate version of this story, wine and dancin’ has become plastic straws and cheeseburgers. It’s like a more Insta-worthy version of a doomsday cult. https://u.osu.edu/vanzandt/2019/02/26/its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-examining-doomsday-cults/ https://u.osu.edu/vanzandt/2019/02/26/its-the-end-of-the-wor... https://slate.com/technology/2011/05/apocalypse-2011-what-happens-to-a-doomsday-cult-when-the-world-doesn-t-end.html https://slate.com/technology/2011/05/apocalypse-2011-what-ha... Literally, global warming activists, including presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, are saying we have 11 years or less left of Earth, it’s hard to take that hysteria seriously considering it sounds just like every other doomsday cult from the past thousand years. Al Gore told us we should be underwater by now. His predictions too, were about 12 years away. Just far enough away as to be impossible to immediately fact-check but close enough to scare people. The Zero Hedge article is actually factual, unlike the “we only have 11/12 years“ mantra that has increased in volume. Make no mistake, the climate movement isn’t about temperatures, it’s about redistribution and the control of the means of production.
- birdyrooster 7y ago
  That ZeroHedge's article on climate change is the perfect shit sandwich of unrelated facts for someone with confirmation bias. It conveniently ignores the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has reached unprecedented levels. Levels that are clearly man made. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ I honestly expected better from you.
- phry 7y ago
  > Literally, global warming activists, including presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, are saying we have 11 years or less left of Earth, They literally are not, conservatives & CC deniers like you just keep parroting this misrepresentation for the purposes of easy dismissal. The 11-12 years is a time period for REDUCING EMISSIONS to keep warming UNDER A CERTAIN LEVEL. but of course you know this and are simply lying about it.

setr 7y ago

..? I’m not seeing anything on that page that isn’t based on “facts”, and none of it seems obviously incorrect..

graeme 7y ago
It says co2 doesn't impact temperature: "While most of the current climatologists who collaborate with the United Nations believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions have exacerbated natural warming in recent decades, there is no empirical proof to support their claim. The only way to test it would be to wait and see if their assumptions come true. The entire climate fraternity was in for a surprise when global temperature between 2000 and 2016 failed to rise as anticipated by the climate alarmists. The scientists assumed that rising CO2 emissions from human activity would result in a rapid rise in temperature, but they didn’t. This proved that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not the primary factor controlling global temperature. Consideration of a much longer period (10,000 or more years) suggests that CO2 had no significant role to play in temperature increases. CO2 never was the temperature control knob."
- stanfordkid 7y ago
  The thing with ZeroHedge is that you will see an article like this alongside another one like this: https://www.zerohedge.com/health/temperatures-pacific-ocean-have-shot-dangerous-levels-and-scientists-are-blaming-strange https://www.zerohedge.com/health/temperatures-pacific-ocean-... It is in aggregate an extreme blog with narratives that are non-consensus. So, yes, climate denial fits in that box, but it will also have articles on climate apocalypse. In aggregate I find it to be fairly eye-opening and bring to light ideas that are forgotten by mainstream media. It also has a healthy disregard for any form of consensus reality or authority. Furthermore, in the very article you linked there is a link to a NATURE commentary: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf Of course, we should leave it to experts to interpret a scientific paper such as this one, but my perception is that reporters do not always get it right. In all of the NYTimes you just hear the consensus from organizations such as the UN, I have yet to see an interview with an author of a paper such as the one mentioned above.
  - graeme 7y ago
    Ironically this seems a good case of gelman amnesia. If you think he's wrong on climate (a MAJOR thing to be wrong about), why would you trust his opinion on subjects where you know less? ------ I didn't link the article, I just reply to the comment asking what was wrong. But he's very much wrong and that nature article doesn't support him. He said CO2 did not lead to a rise in temperature. That article says there was a lower than expected rise in temperature - it's still rose! He said co2 has no significant impact on temperature which is definitely not what that paper is saying. They refer to co2 as anthropogenic forcing. Full text is here: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/...
  - patthebunny 7y ago
    Right, that's the sort of bullshit that media has always pulled. Give equal time to both sides, even when one side is blatantly full of shit. It's ridiculous.
- setr 7y ago
  The main thrust there is that CO2 is not the primary motivator, but instead something else is; which they provide some supporting links for (which I haven’t bothered to review). And that CO2 not being “proven” as the primary motivator due to lack of testing is also trivially true — we only have the one earth to test on, so we test on models; and our understanding of earth is hardly complete, and so too must be our model. The conclusions may be “wrong” but at least that article is hardly making things up as they go along
- swsieber 7y ago
  At that's patently false? Reading through the supporting material it seems like a pretty good point - CO2 follows, not drives temperature. https://cornwallalliance.org/2012/12/carbon-dioxide-and-air-temperature-who-leads-and-who-follows/ https://cornwallalliance.org/2012/12/carbon-dioxide-and-air-...
  - graeme 7y ago
    That's from the article. The author of that post has had virtually all of his work funded by the oil industry. That doesn't make him wrong, but it does raise questions. There are also few who agree with his stance. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/26/uds-david-legates-caught-climate-change-controversy/24090273/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/26/uds-david-leg... Fully examining arguments against Legates would be a lot of work, but here's a discussion of his most recent paper. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jun/03/research-downplaying-impending-global-warming-is-overturned https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
    - swsieber 7y ago
      That has virtually nothing about his claims, just his funding. And while the source of funding is important, I'd love to see an analysis of the actual claims/science.
      - graeme 7y ago
        Oops, my mistake. I meant to link two articles, left off the second. This is the one I was referring to with my final para. Will edit my comment above if I can https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jun/03/research-downplaying-impending-global-warming-is-overturned https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
        swsieber 7y ago
        Many thanks :)
baybal2 7y ago
Reminds me of Yahoo during the first dotcom bubble. Every commentator/speculator was drooling at the possibility of "boring" Yahoo going bust, despite Yahoo being the most sound business in the dotcom space, and ignoring walking warning signs like Pets.com.
JaimeThompson 7y ago
ZH does have a lot of conspiracy type articles that directly state that major world changing events aren't really and that we are being lied to about them which makes me question how much they of what they produce is based on facts and how much is based on their conspiratorial way of thinking. It makes it hard to trust what they are saying sometimes.
patthebunny 7y ago
> Polar Bears and Other Species Are Not Dying But Flourishing Lets base it on reports of a couple of big name species and declare everything is fine. Facts! if you read zerohedge you have long since decided that facts do not at all matter to you.
- prepend 7y ago
  Does it make a claim that everything is fine? I find it curious how remarking that polar bears aren’t dying out should mean that there’s not lots of other species in trouble, not to mention tons of other things that have problems. Despite polar bears improving.

smackay 7y ago

Indeed nothing particularly controversial there and nothing that says that warming on a global scale is not happening. Take the point that climates have always changed. Most definitely. However the concern has always been the rate at which warming is occurring. Given that humans and agriculture have fragmented the natural habitat and hence the ranges of species, the primary concern is the ability of species to adapt. I know that's too subtle a point for mainstream media to digest but it's pretty fundamental in describing the problem. For example, if you are a Brown Bear in northern Spain or the Pyrenees there's nowhere to go. You could do the same for the other points. All verifiable. It's only once you start adding the consequences that things start to look a little problematic.

robbiep 7y ago

3 and 4 are certainly false; whilst 1 and 2 are true, the end result of any change to the status quo of our environment (ie sea levels) is that society simply can’t afford a 7-70m rise in sea levels. Whether or not you ‘believe’ and this isn’t a religious perspective, this should be well accepted science by now, is that we are causing a change we can’t affoed; and even if we aren’t causing it, it looks like ‘factor x’ is, and we as a civilisation should do all we can to avoid it

smackay 7y ago
4 could easily be true also. If I am a Polar Bear hunter but I can't travel so far in search of my quarry because the ice is melting and can't support the weight of my snowmobile then bear numbers could indeed rise. Whether they continue to rise as temperatures increase is anyone's guess. In the end it matters little if the planet is warming from natural or man-made causes. If the environment is sufficiently degraded that things start to come apart then everything is in trouble.

chispers 7y ago

After reading the Zerohedge blog for sometime now, I trained myself to spend time on posts Authored by Tyler Durden and avoid posts Authored by affiliated sites. In general you get some value when you read posts directly authored by Tyler Durden.

briandear 7y ago

It seems like anything even remotely threatening the climate change gospel is treated just as the Catholic Church treated heretics centuries ago. AGW has ascended (descended?) into religious territory where even the slightest criticism of the “truth” is treated as blasphemous. It’s like many of the climate alarmists have turned into old school evangelicals that avoid wine and dancing out of fear it’ll rile up the devil. Except in the climate version of this story, wine and dancin’ has become plastic straws and cheeseburgers. It’s like a more Insta-worthy version of a doomsday cult. https://u.osu.edu/vanzandt/2019/02/26/its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-examining-doomsday-cults/ https://u.osu.edu/vanzandt/2019/02/26/its-the-end-of-the-wor... https://slate.com/technology/2011/05/apocalypse-2011-what-happens-to-a-doomsday-cult-when-the-world-doesn-t-end.html https://slate.com/technology/2011/05/apocalypse-2011-what-ha... Literally, global warming activists, including presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, are saying we have 11 years or less left of Earth, it’s hard to take that hysteria seriously considering it sounds just like every other doomsday cult from the past thousand years. Al Gore told us we should be underwater by now. His predictions too, were about 12 years away. Just far enough away as to be impossible to immediately fact-check but close enough to scare people. The Zero Hedge article is actually factual, unlike the “we only have 11/12 years“ mantra that has increased in volume. Make no mistake, the climate movement isn’t about temperatures, it’s about redistribution and the control of the means of production.

birdyrooster 7y ago
That ZeroHedge's article on climate change is the perfect shit sandwich of unrelated facts for someone with confirmation bias. It conveniently ignores the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has reached unprecedented levels. Levels that are clearly man made. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ I honestly expected better from you.
phry 7y ago
> Literally, global warming activists, including presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, are saying we have 11 years or less left of Earth, They literally are not, conservatives & CC deniers like you just keep parroting this misrepresentation for the purposes of easy dismissal. The 11-12 years is a time period for REDUCING EMISSIONS to keep warming UNDER A CERTAIN LEVEL. but of course you know this and are simply lying about it.