P
Poptech
Guest
Deflecting a question is not an answer.
A third of the world now faces deadly heatwaves as result of climate change
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That does not answer my question. I asked if Breitbart had ever published anything supportive of a liberal position. No? Then that is proof that Breitbart is not objective.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Yes, that is what those who are smearing the IPCC say.I found this video on youtube.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=vIdTHFujDnI
Apparently data about climate change was adjusted for aproximation, by nasa, but going toward the negative error margin for old data like of 1930, and toward the positive error margin for recent data…That was enough to make everything look different.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Yes, and when you do that, how often do you find that Wikipedia has got it totally wrong?
Well, the part about “scientific illiterates” may be gibberish, but it is true that we cannot edit your pages, and that makes it very easy for your pages to have disinformation.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This whole discussion about Wikipedia is getting a little far from the thread topic, which is whether a third of the world now faces deadly heatwaves as a result of climate change. So perhaps we should consider this whole Wiki discussion a deflection and get back to the topic at hand.
P
Poptech
Guest
Every page I look at relating to climate change is blatantly distorted, misleading or wrong. It is a great place to go if you are interested in half-truths and misinformation.
Wikipropaganda On Global Warming (CBS News)
Incorrect, all of our pages have highly accurate information.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Sorry for the hasty post with so typos and omissions…
How Wiki works is not a secret. How it works is well-known.
The “impossibility of knowing” if information is correct or not when you view a page, is, strictly speaking, true for all pages. For some pages, the expertise of authors and the reputation for reliability that they have developed over time helps to break through the “impossibility of knowing”. For Wiki, we have an iterative process, typically convergent, that utilizes the collective expertise and independent verification work of an entire community. This process is reminiscent of how science works.
Other sites have neither of these safeguards, they may be written by scientific illiterates, agenda driven polemicists, or paid hacks who clearly don’t understand how science works. And the shut themselves off from correction, by not enabling editing, and, in the worst cases, not enabling comments.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Agreed. As for Wiki, it is not necessarily a final authority on anything. I would allow my students to quote Wiki and other non-peer-reviewed sources secondarily, but their primary sources had to be peer-reviewed articles and if books or articles in books, I had to see them first and try and figure out if they were by reputable scholars who had published peer-reviewed articles.
As for climategate, it is a non-issue. Even if we were to delete Mann and Jones’s works (and the works of the other scientists involved in climategate) from the climate science, GW was well established before Mann came on the scene (which he admits), and has continued to become more robust over time with many contributions from many researchers from many angles. Climategate is a big fat red herring meant to distract from the bulk of climate science which shows that global warming is happening, and fool people into thinking it is not happening bec a handful of scientists had their emails illegally hacked, emails, which BTW do not in any way disprove GW.
Furthermore “trick” refers to method (of splicing together 2 datasets for a graph) and “hide the decline” refers to the proxy temps based on tree ring data declining during the modern period, while the instrumental temperature data (which are accurate than proxy data) were actually increasing, which brings me to the OP…
It is not only people who are suffering from more deadly heatwaves, but also plants, including crops and maybe trees directly and for sure indirectly from GW-enhanced wildfires.
Public health officials, as mentioned above, claimed that the 70,000 heat-related deaths in Europe in 2003 (at least half of which are attributed to GW), were not as much due to the high heat stress during the day, but that the nights were hot and humid and didn’t give the body a chance to recuperate from the daytime intense heat.
Note that a sign of GW is that the minimum diurnal temps (night lows) are warming faster than the maximum diurnal temps (day highs).
RE plants, I came across this study when I was doing research on how GW impacts crops:
Welch, J., J. R. Vincent, M. Auffhammer, P. F. Moya, A. Dobermann, and D. Dawe. 2010. “Rice Yields in Tropical/Subtropical Asia Exhibit Large but Opposing Sensitivities to Minimum and Maximum Temperatures.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(33):14562-14567.
IOW, night warmer temps had a negative impact on crop growth, while the day higher temps now had a positive impact (the 2 effects canceling each other out…from the text of the article), but that in the future with higher and higher day temps those too would have a neg impact, causing net crop reduction.
The fact that higher night (low diurnal) temps have a negative impact on people and on rice crops made me start thinking the same could be true for trees, and perhaps be the cause for the decline in the tree proxy temps during the modern period of GW.
I wrote to several scientists about that but they didn’t seem to know why the tree proxy temps had declined in the modern time.
So it is possible, maybe even likely, that the decline (in “hide the decline”) in tree-ring growth (and tree health) could have been due to the warmer night temps that did not allow the trees to recoup from the daytime heat stress.
In the past even during heatwaves, at least the nights would usually get cool enough for a few hours (during those wee hours) to allow humans and plants to recuperate from the day’s intense heat stress. It’s different now with GW giving us less of that cool during the wee hours. I personally have noticed the difference during heatwaves between the early 1970s and now.
J
josie_L
Guest
Yes, I have, as I’ve already delineated that Breitbart has a rightist bias, and parlays the conservative stance (so much of what the Left stands for will not be supported on a right leaning news outlet), but the SAME IF NOT WORSE is being done by the MSM, which is predominately LEFTIST. Moreover, the reason the MSM has been thus far enabled to continue with their leftist agenda unobstructed is because they lack competition from the other side, the right side.
But things are changing and people are seeking alternative news because they are fed up with being forced fed LEFTIST views on every subject under the sun, including CLIMATE DISRUPTION.
Have a good day!
L
lynnvinc
Guest
The MSM are corporate media and perhaps slightly left of center if not pretty much center. If you want leftist media go to Free Speech TV and other such sources, and you will see a huge difference between corporate MSM and non-corporate sponsored media.Yes, I have, as I’ve already delineated that Breitbart has a rightist bias, and parlays the conservative stance (so much of what the Left stands for will not be supported on a right leaning news outlet), but the SAME IF NOT WORSE is being done by the MSM, which is predominately LEFTIST. Moreover, the reason the MSM has been thus far enabled to continue with their leftist agenda unobstructed is because they lack competition from the other side, the right side.
But things are changing and people are seeking alternative news because they are fed up with being forced fed LEFTIST views on every subject under the sun, including CLIMATE DISRUPTION.
Have a good day!
That said the MSM as been appalling on GW for nearly 30 years, only mentioning it a bit here and there, and often denying it. I would lump them pretty much with right-wing media. I’ve been having to go to the library (then the internet once I started using it in the mid-90s) to get my information from science journals on the topic.
That said, GW is NOT a political issue at all, but a scientific issue and a religious issue in that it involves our moral conduct, about whether we work to reduce our harms to humans and others of God’s creation or not.
I think the Democrats only picked up the issue to get votes. In the 90s they knew nada about it and didn’t really want to hear about it.
The main point is no one (Right or Left) likes to think they themselves are responsible for some harms, or have to change things in their lives (like take reusable shopping bag or turn off engine in drive thrus). It is very painful and abhorrent to nearly everyone to accept responsibility for something they had no idea earlier they were causing. I know. I went thru that process in 1990 during Lent, and it was only after Easter at an Earth Day celebration in the park that I started finding solutions and realized there is much I could do.
Again, GW is NOT a political issue, as much as the Right and the Left would like to make it into one.
E
Ender
Guest
If you mean has Wikipedia fallen on their sword and acknowledged this? Probably not. Have others discussed it? For sure. Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia
History of climate gets “erased” online
Wikipedia Meets Its Own Climategate
WikiPropoganda
William Connolley, the individual involved in all this, was a co-founder of RealClimate, and a member of their website until 2007.
They were discussing the fact that a chart appeared in the 1990 IPCC report and no one knew where it came from, and as Bradley said himself: “*the graph has no objective basis whatsoever.” Nor did anyone in the AGW community even know there was a problem until a skeptic challenged it. Then the concern changed to how to minimize the damage. This was an email from Phil Jones to Tom Wigley (former head of the CRU!) a few days later:
This is all getting quite complex. It clearly isn’t something that should be discussed online on our website —at least till we know all the detail and have got the history right as best we can. A lot of this history is likely best left buried, but I hope to summarise enough to avoid all the skeptics wanting copies of these non-mainstream papers. Finding them in the CRU may be difficult!
*Are you really denying that ClimateGate and WikiGate ever happened?
Ender
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This is all besides the point of this thread because the data I cited from Wikipedia is easy to verify independently. The position of all the agencies I mentioned are publicly available.
But “informationliberation.com”, “spectator.org”, “worldnetdaily.net”, and an opinion piece from WSJ? Really?
It is an embarrassment to have a graph in your paper that has a questionable origin - much like the embarrassment of having typos. But since the graphs are not essential to the truth of falseness of the findings, it seems little more than an embarrassment. As far as the reliability of those findings, what is the problem with this exchange?
J
josie_L
Guest
No, it’s more leftist, especially under the Obama years, i.e, I have never seen a shift culturally speaking which has given rise/prominence to progressive issues, i.e., gay marriage, transgenderism, gender identity, illegal immigrants/open borders … . .etc. These are the types of issues that the MSM embraces wholeheartedly.
No, I don’t think the media in recent times has denied Climate disruption (it is no longer GW), in fact, they’ve embraced it like a runaway train to invoke end of times/apocalyptic natural disasters.
I’m sorry to say but Climate disruption has been politicized, and in such a way as to deny and condemn anyone who disagrees with the science/ideology behind AGW, in fact, using derogatory terms like “denier” thereby invoking the HOLOCAUST as a means to discredit them. In other words, there is more here than just science. It is infected with communist and socialist think, that has rendered the the science of climatology a tool of Leftist purveyors.
Read how environmentalism came into being and you will understand how far back this goes and how it’s connected to the Left.
I am very much concerned about the environment, but I will not do so at the expense of truth and honest inquiry, which in my mind means ALLOWING both sides of the divide to inquire and search and observe unhindered, i.e., those scientists who believe in AGW and those who don’t. Because science is all about openness and/or open-minded approach.
AGW is very much a tool of the left (it means greater and more centralized government, taxes, power for the left).
L
lynnvinc
Guest
What’s interesting to me is that CC skeptics are extremely caught up in graphs, like they were with the hockey stick, which made them go ballistic, even threatening Mann’s small daughter. Despite the fact that GW had already been very well established before Mann and that graph.
Of course it could be that they are going on the idea that a picture is worth a thousand words (or pieces of data), and I do myself use graphs to get a point across, but as you point out it is the actual findings in numbers and the assessment of those numbers by experts that counts, not the graphs.
I haven’t been following this story, but it seems the graph is not necessarily an inaccurate portrayal of the stats and data, only that they don’t know where it came from and ?? is somewhat crude, maybe on the whole valid but not precise.
The IPCC reports are huge and they do make errors here and there (they are created by scientists in their very limited spare time mostly for free), but new IPCC reports come out every 5 or so years that supersede the old ones.
Why are we talking about the 1990 one!!!
This is a super-duper ridiculous red herring, which seems akin to making a huge fuss on and on and on about those 2 scientists (contrary to the majority of climate scientists) some 40 or so years ago saying we could be getting into an ice age in some 100s or 1000s of years (I think bec the impact level of the aerosol effect was not very well known at the time and we were in a cooling period).
Next they’ll be ripping Joseph Fourier to shreds for some mistakes he made 200 years ago re the greenhouse effect.
My professor would have called all this whiggish.
T
Theo520
Guest
The Hockey Stick graph was deliberate lying by CC Alarmists,
people have a responsibility to get upset when such misinformation is presented as fact.
people have a responsibility to get upset when such misinformation is presented as fact.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Sez who?
P
ProVatican
Guest
Everybody.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Thanks for playing.
P
Poptech
Guest
Wikipedia has no safe guards. Functional illiterates with an Internet connection can change anything they want at any time on any unprotected page. Scientific illiterates, agenda driven polemicists and paid hacks edit Wikipedia all the time.
Experiment concludes: Most misinformation inserted into Wikipedia may persist (Wikipediocracy, April 13, 2015)
D
dvdjs
Guest
Nice article. It show that the safeguard of community review fails when there is a lack of community interest. We learn that obscure fake entries placed into articles that get little play can and will persist until someone does come along to fix it. It would be interesting to see how far this might go with matters less obscure on topics of significant interest.
It is of interest to note, for example, that, in the past week, something like 22 edits have been made by eight different editors in the wiki article on “Scientific opinion on climate change”.
As susceptible to attack as the safeguards are, they are than the complete lack of safeguards on many private blogs, where functional illiterates can post all sorts of rubbish with no oversight.
- Status