●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byHistory's Coming To ( 1059484 ) writes:
These studies only show what they do because most of the world's scientists are funded by the anti-oil lobby, who have so much money that the oil industry find it difficult to compete. Imagine if you were on an environmental archaeologist's research salary - that's got to be in the tens of thousands of dollars a year, why on earth would you accept the measly hundreds of thousands of dollars that the oil industry can afford to pay their researchers?
(That's sarcasm, by the way.)
byAnonymous Coward writes:
It didn't take a vast money machine to convince millions of young people to tattoo and pierce themselves in weird places. It doesn't take a vast money machine to convince everybody in academia that AGW is fact.
In both cases, all it takes is peer pressure.
Just because corporations prefer to use big money campaigns as their tool, doesn't mean it's the only tool required to instill a mass belief or activity.
Now, I'm not saying that AGW is or isn't real. The debate over the GW part is pretty much over. It's
byChris Burke ( 6130 ) writes:
There are probably literally a handfull of people who actually have opinions formed on science. They're sitting in universities looking at models run on supercomputers. Everybody else is using these people as priests, even if they didn't ask to be priests.
And for those of us who want to form our opinions based on science, but aren't climatologists, looking to the people who are and actually do study and understand climate science and asking them is wrong... how exactly?
For any other non-controversial field of science, this wouldn't be controversial either. Nobody says we're treating particle physicists like "priests" when we go with their best working picture of the microscopic universe with the understanding that this picture may change. How is that like a priest?
And for the record, while I do take what the climatologists say as a provisional truth, I would be delighted if they came out one day and said they were wrong all this time and it turns out there's nothing to worry about. So far, so bad.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byHistory's Coming To ( 1059484 ) writes:
Nobody says we're treating particle physicists like "priests"
Whilst I agree with your comment in general, you're about a week behind the times [guardian.co.uk] on that one.
byKreigaffe ( 765218 ) writes:
The problem is the loudest climatologists and the loudest politicians got too buddy-buddy, and you got into a situation where they were feeding off each other.
I'll listen to the particle physicist, because he's telling me about facts, science. Information.
That climatologist? Here's the problem, they got too conflated with the politicians, and I don't want to hear fucking policy talk coming from a scientist's mouth -- least of all the fearmongers who said bullshit like NYC would be underwater by 2015, that
bymcpheat ( 597661 ) writes:
I'm not an AGW denier, but I can't tolerate the scare tactics. And I'm still pretty mad at East Anglia -- you just don't do science by gathering data, adjusting that data, and then throwing the original data out and not allowing (or even recording) the methods by which you adjusted that data. They could have just fucking made it all up, it's non-verifiable UNLESS someone else was keeping track of those weather stations that oh, no, all the records were kept at one place and then thrown out 20 years ago. Bad science. Heck, it could be accidentally bad science, but FUCKING OWN UP TO IT! Cannot stand people who talk their way around unsubstantiated data and try to pass it off as fucking immutable gospel.
Perhaps you should get your information somewhere other than denier blogs, your version of what happened at UEA is pure fantasy. They didn't collect any original data of their own, the data came from the organisations that ran the weather stations who have their own records. They deleted THEIR copy of the data not the originals which still exist. Their results have been confirmed by three separate organisations including one funded by deniers to disprove it.
byKreigaffe ( 765218 ) writes:
They collected the data from the stations, which was the original data. Yes. Some of those stations still have records, too.
That data that they collected was stored, for years, until some time in the IIRC 80s when they had (a grad student I'm sure lawl) it digitized and the physical hard-copy records of the data were tossed.
That data was "normalized", which was never explained. Yeah, that's a pretty typical thing in science, but it's also pretty typical to explicitly state how that was done -- so that ot
bygeekoid ( 135745 ) writes:
"- least of all the fearmongers who said bullshit like NYC would be underwater by 2015, that the midwest would be a barren desert by 2020, that the best beach weather would be Canadian."
those weren't climatologists.
. And I'm still pretty mad at East Anglia -- you just don't do science by gathering data, adjusting that data, and then throwing the original data out and not allowing (or even recording) the methods by which you adjusted that data."
that's not what happened.
Just so you know, the data was left out
byKreigaffe ( 765218 ) writes:
Huh? No, the data they collected from the climate stations was *destroyed*. In the 80s. 86, IIRC. Some of it remains at the stations themselves, but the rest was 'normalized' and digitized.
Yeah, that probably just means they converted units, maybe trimmed decimals to consistency.
regardless, I never said I didn't agree with their findings.. i just have a few nits to pick about their methodology and presentation. You no longer have the original data? Don't pretend that's not an issue when people are tr
byriverat1 ( 1048260 ) writes:
... least of all the fearmongers who said bullshit like NYC would be underwater by 2015, that the midwest would be a barren desert by 2020, that the best beach weather would be Canadian.
If you seriously think any climate scientist ever said those things would happen in those time frames you need to get a better source of information. For instance 3 feet of sea level rise by 2100 (what current projections say) won't put NYC under water but it will make the results of storm surges like with Sandy that much more devastating.
●urrent threshold.
byryanmc1 ( 682957 ) writes:
looking to the people who are and actually do study and understand climate science and asking them is wrong... how exactly?
Where did those scientists get the money for those supercomputers and their pay checks? What would happen to that money if they came out and said they were wrong? Both sides are creating this havoc for the money.
byCayceeDee ( 1883844 ) writes:
Well, first off the oil companies would love them and pay them handsomely. We know this because this is what the oil companies have done to people in their pocket. You might want to look into how much money the oil companies have invested in keeping the debate down. The amount they spend dwarfs anything a scientist gets and just because your side is willing to prostitute themselves for money doesn't mean that real scientist are. This is definitely a case of pot calling the kettle black.
byChris Burke ( 6130 ) writes:
The opportunity for "wrong" is that you can be biased to choose one expert or priest over another. You're likely to make this choice based on, to some extent, what the guy next to you thinks.
I choose the concesus. I never choose "one" expert unless I'm sure that expert is representing the concensus opinion of many scientists. If there's large segments with varying opinions, usually indicating a lack of data to explain which is more correct, then I remain agnostic. If there's one expert who disagrees with everyone else, I am leery of that expert's opinion, even if it's exactly what I want to hear.
If that expert turns out to be right, then that will eventually be reflected by the rest of the s
●rrent threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
/* Halley */
(Halley's comment.)
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...