(no subject)

[deathboy]

The Wall Street Journal vs. The Scientific Consensus

A WSJ editorial seems to fly in the face of scientific consensus, painting a much watered down picture of the global climate problems, and attempting to discredit those who say we're heading for a man-made catastrophe.

[link nicked from malcubed]

Comments

[miss-soap.livejournal.com]

Yeees. This would be related to recent evidence of tampering by the Bush administration, trying to remove all suggestion that global climate change has already started, or that it's even a problem on a global scale from G8 documentation, and similar.

[deathboy.livejournal.com]

certainly does seem like someone was 'got to', and/or had a very specific agenda.

[celestial-fluke.livejournal.com]

hey there scott. my email has been broken and i have been offline for a bit anyway so i am a little out of touch. have you got any gigs coming up in london soonish?

[deathboy.livejournal.com]

yup - we're playing saturday, 16th july at the underworld :)

in case you need to know, the website always lists upcoming gigs:

http://www.deathboy.co.uk

:)

[celestial-fluke.livejournal.com]

cheers scott see you there :)

fuggit, who cares?

[burket.livejournal.com]

Am i the only one actually looking forward to the end of humanity?

Re: fuggit, who cares?

[lis0r.livejournal.com]

Nope - just a shame we're likely to take some less horrible creatures out along with ourselves.

Re: fuggit, who cares?

[burket.livejournal.com]

agreed, but the numbers support our cause.

[failed-bard.livejournal.com]

With all the bizarre requirements in order for a temperature to be concidered official, I'm amazed the US govenment acknowledge that there even has been warming.

We have two different thermometers here on the farm, both in the shade, and both put the temperature here at 34c two days ago. I just checked environment Canada for the two closest centers, and they both had the high for the day at 28c (one 28.3, one 28.4).

While I was still living in Edmonton, the oficial temperature was never what the temperature actually was. Not that the forecast low for the city center has any bearing on the temperature outside the head island all that concrete causes, but the highs should have been the same in the suburbs.

wwm.

[siani-hedgehog.livejournal.com]

you know, there isn't really scientific consensus on the degree, speed, or cause of global warming. it's just that one group of scientists has announced that there is, and that all the other scientists don't count.

[malcubed.livejournal.com]

This seems to be the easiest way to respond to that claim.

[siani-hedgehog.livejournal.com]

yeah... because that's *really* scientific. i mean, she didn't even correctly report the phrase she searched for. i refer you, in turn, to the comments on that article.
the consensus she tests is not on the degree, speed, or cause of global warming. it refers only to the idea that "human activities are a significant factor affecting climate". which is very different from deathboy's statement that "we're heading for a man-made catastrophe".

[malcubed.livejournal.com]

Which is exactly the same as your "scientific consensus on the degree, speed (0.17 oC/decade over the last 30 years), or cause of global warming ('100% (all of them) support the consensus view that a significant fraction of recent climate change is due to human activities')"

[siani-hedgehog.livejournal.com]

no, it simply isn't. if you can't grasp the difference between the two, i pity anyone affected by your decisions.

"a significant fraction of recent climate change is due to human activities" is not the same as agreement on the degree of change, the cause, or the speed at which it is occurring. a significant fraction is not the same thing as all.

your second link refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, not to scientists in general. and there *is* broad consensus that you cannot build an accurate climate model on 30 years of data.

[failed-bard.livejournal.com]

My problem with the kyoto accord, apart from the lack of legitimacy to the claims, is that it ignores the fact that the increase in co2 levels has more to do with global deforestation (and the loss of algae due to oceanic pollution) than it does with fossil fuels. Even without gas, the worlds 6+ billion people are still going to breathe, and every time they do they make it worse.

So, the real solution involves either reforestation or genocide, your pick.

wwm.