How climate change deniers were duped into believing Daily Mail article over manipulated global warming data
8 month ago an article in the (not really known as reliable source) The Daily Mail made the round, including here on steemit, in the circle of people who believe that 99% of climate scientists are total idiots. The title was:
Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
I am writing this just for showing; as it is a prime example how total bullshit still gets promoted as "the ultimate proof" as long as it what you want to believe (And I am just waiting for the comment that says that my article... Big government... George Soros... Chemtrails...)
Here is what The Daily Mail is now forced to admit:
...the significance of Dr Bates' concerns about the archiving procedures had been misrepresented in the article, and the newspaper had taken no steps to establish the veracity of Dr Bates' claims. World leaders had not been 'duped', as the headline said, and there was no 'irrefutable evidence' that the paper was based on 'misleading, unverified data', as the article had claimed....
https://boingboing.net/2017/10/16/daily-mail-retracts-global-war.html
I wish people would have a debate over the real issues at hand instead of the whole "hoaxers" vs. "deniers" trope.
Anybody can see temperatures warmed over a given period of time. The fact that CO2 being a greenhouse gas is well established scientifically and that there is a correlation between CO2 levels and warmer temperatures certainly indicates that it plays a role.
Then there is the complete and utter BS that politicians like Al Gore spout, presenting exaggerated outcomes that have little or no scientific backing. Or presenting carbon tax schemes that have even less scientific backing. There is currently much uncertainty in how big of a component man-made global warming is and climate models thus far have been poor predictors.
Whatever the scientific consensus is on global warming (as if there is such a thing), there is relatively little science to suggest the best solution. Do nothing and put efforts towards mitigation when problems occur? Drastic forced reductions in carbon output? Defer to the next generation when economic costs of dealing with the issue (and therefore impact on humanity) will be far less? Launch a configurable "umbrella" into space to reduce solar warming (which is perfectly feasible by the way)? Something else?
Totally agree, we can never resolve things just by talking about how those or these right or wrong at times, it should be a real debate
test
edit:
Now, this for example is wrong. There is not much uncertainty about man made part in the change. The really really careful ones say 70%, others say 100%. But if we - as humanity - don't change our behavior, that just means that the earth takes a bit longer (or not) before the climate change has really serious results.
And climate models have been quite good predictors. In fact the real curve is very close to the "most likely prediction" ones.
But yes, of course, you can find extremely diverging models, because they all use different estimates.
There is no perfect model that could predict Trumps win in the US elections in the year 2000 - but that will still be a big influence in global climate. Here again: The models based on "we don't do as the scientist say and make only small efforts" is quite matching with real earth results.
test 2 (sorry, stragne things happening here)
Now, this for example is wrong. There is not much uncertainty about man made part in the change. The really really careful ones say 70%, others say 100%. But if we - as humanity - don't change our behavior, that just means that the earth takes a bit longer (or not) before the climate change has really serious results.
And climate models have been quite good predictors. In fact the real curve is very close to the "most likely prediction" ones.
But yes, of course, you can find extremely diverging models, because they all use different estimates.
There is no perfect model that could predict Trumps win in the US elections in the year 2000 - but that will still be a big influence in global climate. Here again: The models based on "we don't do as the scientist say and make only small efforts" is quite matching with real earth results.
nice post sir thanks for sharing
People thinking they know more about something than people who actually spend their life studying it, and then there is people who just want to feel special my screaming "CONSPIRACY HURR DURR", btw nice posts
btw, sorry im replying again and to myself no less but in that 1% you mention, are there climate scientists that believe that humans have no part in the changes?
I cannot say what they believe, but some are paid by e.g. the oil industry and say that.
But even if there are some who actually believe that - there are always some who believe anything. And that is not bad in itself, quite contrary. They may be wrong in 99 of 100 cases but they might be right in case 100 and "stupidly" work for that until they can proof it and that is why they exist.
It is impossible to be faster then a horse or to fly. Humans will never harness the power of lighting. The moon is a lantern made of cheese.
Of course in case of climate change it is incredibly unlikely that current science POV is wrong. And even if they are, the worst thing that can happen is that we get a nicer planet. And if they are right and we don't act, we are really, totally, completely fucked up as a species.
So I can't even understand the point of all that arguing from the "unbelievers".