Landmark California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics

[sloppypie]

It's hugely political, and it is more efficient to push legislation and control things when criticism and scrutiny is at a minimum.

It's hugely political for paranoid republicans that think there's a nwo and liberals out to get them. But that's a stupid fucking reason to be so dismissive of the issue.

 

[UpaLoompa]

The Articles he linked make no reference to any standard of falsifiability. No advocate of man made climate change theory will EVER give a standard of falsifiability. There's a very simple reason for this, because if that very basic scientific protocol were to be followed, it would not take very long to expose the theory of man-made climate change as lacking.

A Popperian framework is a woefully incomplete framework to stick to. It simply does not and cannot address all scientific questions, that doesn't make research into those questions unscientific.

We don't have multiple Earths with which we could conduct the sorts of experiments required to fully test climate change predictions. Likewise we don't have multiple Earths to conduct experiments necessary for certain accepted facts of geology, biology, etc. We also don't have multiple universes to conduct experiments necessary to test all of physics. Those fields are still "scientific" and their inferences still appropriate even if they're not always proceeding from a strict empirical falsification approach.

What we do have, however, is ample empirical evidence for the climatic effects of increasing CO2 (these experiments date back to the 1890's). We also have predictions from models that can and have been tested (and which have performed very well). We also have ample observational evidence. Etc. etc. etc. etc.


I will say that popperian dogmatism is almost right there with "correlation doesn't equal causation" when it comes to misunderstandings about how science operates that are popular among pseudointellectuals.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

If you disagree with their conclusions, you are free to conduct and publish your own counter study.

People like you would allow the Tobacco companies to simply lobby Congress to make it illegal to question their sham studies showing tobacco is harmless.

Full retard

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Climate chsnge scientists sre all bought and paid. Don't you morons know this by now. 98% of all scientists who say climate change is man made are all bought and paid. Lol


Now find me who spent billions to buy these people off and then show me how they're making thst money back lol.

I'm waitinggggggg

 

[lifelessheap]

Hi Kepler, you read your article?

A landmark California bill gaining steam would make it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent, clearing the way for lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.”

If I sell you a car, tell you it's great, and it's a piece of shit, we call that fraud. If I tell you my product is harmless and I know that's a lie, we call that fraud. So how is this any different? There's overwhelming evidence for climate change, literally overwhelming evidence. You're condoning a minority of "skeptics" bought and paid for by institutions that benefit from there "being nothing in sight", to subvert the very core of scientific consensus on the matter and you are somehow defending the scientific process?

Is this real life? You're condoning literal fraud.

But climate "scientists" have already been wrong an uncountable amount of times. They exaggerate the risks and climate models are constantly proven wrong with time.


"Despite Al Gore's prediction seven years ago that the polar ice cap would be completely melted by now, it is actually larger than it was in 2012, Mail Online reports.

"The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff," Gore said in 2007 when he was accepting the Nobel Peace Prize for his climate change efforts. "It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now."

But, the Mail reports, the ice cap has actually expanded by between 43 and 63 percent. An area the size of Alaska that was navigable water two years ago now is covered by ice."

Should Gore be punished for deceiving the public?

 

[Falsedawn]

But climate "scientists" have already been wrong an uncountable amount of times. They exaggerate the risks and climate models are constantly proven wrong with time.


"Despite Al Gore's prediction seven years ago that the polar ice cap would be completely melted by now, it is actually larger than it was in 2012, Mail Online reports.

"The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff," Gore said in 2007 when he was accepting the Nobel Peace Prize for his climate change efforts. "It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now."

But, the Mail reports, the ice cap has actually expanded by between 43 and 63 percent. An area the size of Alaska that was navigable water two years ago now is covered by ice."

Should Gore be punished for deceiving the public?

Holy dogshit that hot take is absolutely garbage.

No, Arctic sea ice has not "recovered". There's two main metrics you need to look at, sea ice extent and sea ice volume. Extent describes the area the ice covers, volume describes how much there actually is. Totally aside from the fact that there are year to year variances all the time due to the fact that it is affected by numerous weather related factors, only looking at sea ice extent is getting like one half of the story. But not only does that shitty article do that, it only looks at extent for one year. Due to those variances, you have to look at the trends of extent and volume. Let's look at those trends

Spoiler: Extent Anomalies 1981-2016

https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

See that Trend line? Down. That means that over the time period, we are overall losing ice coverage.

But how about volume? Remember, we only have one half of the puzzle.

Spoiler: Ice Volume Anomaly and Trend 1979-2016

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

Well damn. Looks like the Daily Mail is full of shit.

Was Al Gore right that the ice would be gone by 2007? Lol, nah. Was he right that we're rapidly losing sea ice (supported by measurements of extent and volume)? You bet your ass.

Stop reading tabloid bullshit and get with the actual facts on this matter. The Daily Mail isn't going to do anything but make you look stupid when confronted with graphs.