What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

joecct said:
What!? The models are wrong!! Pshaw!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...eat-climate-change-exaggerated-faulty-models/
Click to expand...

Read the primary article, not that bull****. It says nothing of that sort, of course. Also note they do not clearly link the primary article because that would hurt their narrative.

From the paper:
"Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible."

Yet another example of how coverage of scientific findings is almost uniformly wrong or incomplete.
 
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

I dont think he fell for it, he posted it for a reason. He trolled and it isnt the first time.
 
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

Handyman said:
I dont think he fell for it, he posted it for a reason. He trolled and it isnt the first time.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you're betting commission (Fish) not omission (Flag)?

I hadn't thought of that but joe does not strike me that way. Like I said, he plays dirty on The Death Cult, but otherwise he seems pretty straight to me.
 
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

Kepler said:
Oh, so you're betting commission (Fish) not omission (Flag)?

I hadn't thought of that but joe does not strike me that way. Like I said, he plays dirty on The Death Cult, but otherwise he seems pretty straight to me.
Click to expand...

Yes he is definitely Fishbotting it up. All he needed was a sad face to make it seem like the truth bothers him oh so much.

You are assuming he either A) can't read or B) can't actually do any amount of thinking/follow up. joe isnt stupid, he read the article and knew what it actually said just didnt care.
 
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

Kep I don't know why you continue to give Joe the benefit of the doubt. Not only is his track record quite obvious, but how many conservatives have a clever sense of humor?
 
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

Slap Shot said:
Kep I don't know why you continue to give Joe the benefit of the doubt. Not only is his track record quite obvious, but how many conservatives have a clever sense of humor?
Click to expand...

For the same reason I did with Bob and Pio and for that matter for a long, long time with Flag. A little wit goes a long way and all those guys demonstrated that in at least some of the geography of the mind they were interesting.

There are so few humans among the apes when you suspect one you have to make the effort.
 
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

Slap Shot said:
Kep I don't know why you continue to give Joe the benefit of the doubt. Not only is his track record quite obvious, but how many conservatives have a clever sense of humor?
Click to expand...

Does Dennis Miller count?

yes that's a joke
 
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

joecct said:
Telegraph and today's WaPo reference it. If it was Russia Today, I'd look for a second source.
Click to expand...

You didn't need to look for a second source, you just needed to look at the source. That would have clued you in to what was already obvious to most of us--that the Telegraph's commentary on the study was nothing more than denier propaganda.
 
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

GrinCDXX said:
You didn't need to look for a second source, you just needed to look at the source. That would have clued you in to what was already obvious to most of us--that the Telegraph's commentary on the study was nothing more than denier propaganda.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Always look at the primary literature.
 
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

WisconsinWildcard said:
Exactly. Always look at the primary literature.
Click to expand...

But the picture had a polar bear near some ice...are you saying such an glorious picture of nature could be used to try and legitimize an article that is total crap?

The fact that joe hasnt actually mea culpaed speaks volumes as to his motives.
 
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

Here you go Joe. Somewhat reasoned coverage of the paper you did not read. Note that the original paper (and location) are very easily found in the beginning of the article so one can look at the primary literature.

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ut-climate-change-leads-to-confused-coverage/

There are not many people who can write about science accurately. Some warning signs you should look out for are:

-Not identifying the primary article easily (you should not have to search for it). Often they will say "a study from <insert prestigious university> concludes"

-Not identifying the impact factor of the journal or identifying if it is a predatory pay-for-publication journal (there are several bad actor lists out there that make this easier)

-Not quoting statements in the primary literature (as these are peer reviewed) and conversely, quoting scientists talking about the paper (these are not peer reviewed)

-Stating that one paper has completely changed the literature (that does not happen, science is a gradual process and there are very very few examples where on paper offsets an entire field of study. Even at its fastest it takes several papers, usually from several research groups confirming new results.)

-Quoting people outside of their primary area of research (often in the form of Nobel's disease: the error in thinking that you are an expert in everything if you are an expert in one thing)
 
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

From the International Federation of Library Associations: how to spot fake news.

<img src="https://blogs.ifla.org/lpa/files/2017/01/How-to-Spot-Fake-News-1.jpg" height="500"></img>
 
Last edited:
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

Ask a Librarian? Do they have those anymore?
 
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

walrus said:
Ask a Librarian? Do they have those anymore?
Click to expand...

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
They're around, but on life support.
Click to expand...

What fade says is, sadly, probably not far off. But let me throw a little sunshine on libraries and librarians.

I live in a small rural community probably not unlike small towns everywhere that are not named Los Gatos or Old Greenwich. Our city library is a vibrant place, with probably 5 or 6 staff on duty at all times and generally kept pretty busy. And a coupe of them are usually qualified librarians. People are always seated in the lounge area reading newspapers, and there is, as often as not, someone at the front desk checking out materials at one of the two checkout locations. I'm sure much of that is interlibrary loan material, which includes music and videos, and I doubt many are checking out Proust or Ezra Pound. But people are coming to this place, and they are reading. Something more than tweets, at least.

And no, I have no answer to those who will point out that Wisconsin gave its EC votes to Trump. Maybe the fake news poster Kep published here just didn't get out in time.
 
Re: Climate Change 2: Thank God for Global Warming

walrus said:
Ask a Librarian? Do they have those anymore?
Click to expand...

We'll always have Marian.

<img src="https://www.carnegielibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/musicman2-1.jpg"></img>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top