3 ms·

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

by setr 7y ago

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.

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

by setr 7y ago

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

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.