Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nil]

FoxNews is by far the most biased of any of the cable networks, and they're all quite biased.  I wouldn't have any problem at all with this if they a.) didn't constantly deny it and b.) a good chunk of their viewers didn't buy into said denials.

In my opinion there's nothing wrong with partisan news, though.  If done openly or even semi-openly it's a hell of a lot more honest than claiming to be "objective."

i ran this through an older climate change model in my third year. i took the (now old) EIA forcasts of a peak in about 2027, made some generalised assumptions about the amount of Co2 drawn from oil, ignored the fact that a decline in oil supplies would bring most other industry down with it, and ran it rhough the model.

got a total temperature rise of 0.5-2 degrees me thinks. averaging about 1 degree for the 100 years. So year the peak (which wil happen at some point) could save us from the worst, but a global average 1 degree rise would still wipe out hundreds of species, raise sea level wenuth to bugger bangladesh, and cause some other issues, but not quite day after tommorow stuff (not that that film is especially grounded in the real world).

For the record I was trying to say something more along the lines of "the solutions to climate change are mostly the same as solutions to peak oil, so we should pursue those solutions whether or not climate change is valid" rather than "peak oil will solve climate change."  Interesting stuff though, are you working in the field?

[kuro_suna]

I barely care whether or not global warming is real because limited oil supplies are undoubtedly real (you can debate how close we are to the peak, but you can't debate that it will come someday) and the solutions to climate change are mostly the same as the solutions to peak oil.

i ran this through an older climate change model in my third year. i took the (now old) EIA forcasts of a peak in about 2027, made some generalised assumptions about the amount of Co2 drawn from oil, ignored the fact that a decline in oil supplies would bring most other industry down with it, and ran it rhough the model.

got a total temperature rise of 0.5-2 degrees me thinks. averaging about 1 degree for the 100 years. So year the peak (which wil happen at some point) could save us from the worst, but a global average 1 degree rise would still wipe out hundreds of species, raise sea level wenuth to bugger bangladesh, and cause some other issues, but not quite day after tommorow stuff (not that that film is especially grounded in the real world).

If we hit any serious declines in oil production without having prepared alternatives beforehand either:
A: we start burning tonnes of coal and possibly resort to clearing forests for energy
B: we start killing each other for what oil is left

[de5me7]

it isnt so much oil as cheap oil that the world needs. the global economy is built on the assumption that we can transport goods cheaply, hard to reach, or oil we have to fund military campaigns for wont cut it, and neither will coal.

i recond if the price of oil gets much over $150 towards $200 there will be chaos.

also if peak oil occurs prior to 2020, then maybe we will never see the worst effects of climate change, given that imo the models are only vague predicitions so alot could be different.

am i working in the field, sort of, ive done a BSc in physical geography and am now studing a an Msc, in that itme ive done two moduels on hsitroic an dfuture climate change, and a module on geoisotope chemistry, so i know quite a bit, but im not a specialist, i couldnt build a model, but i know how they work. and what they are based on.

[G-Flex]

In my opinion there's nothing wrong with partisan news, though.  If done openly or even semi-openly it's a hell of a lot more honest than claiming to be "objective."

The problem here is that even honestly-subjective programming needs to actually tell the truth. Fox News (and possibly others!) will intentionally manipulate the truth or outright lie in order to get what they want. They beat the drums that the absurd conspiracy theorists follow.

A rather small example of this: Fox News talking about a recent conservative protest, and inflating the numbers of people there, or showing footage from a completely different protest as if it were the same one, because the footage was more impressive.

[LegoLord]

Also, whenever a republican gets involved in some scandal, Fox News reports them as being a democrat instead.

[Sevrun]

Also, whenever a republican gets involved in some scandal, Fox News reports them as being a democrat instead.

LoL

I'm not sure what to think of this 'ClimateGate' thing.  Haven't had the opportunity to browse through the material.  I don't particularly trust the climate warming groups, as most of them seem to prefer scaring people to explaining their positions.  Some of those groups seem to think of themselves kinda like the old Catholic church, "don't read the Word, we'll tell you what you need."  Others that are willing to debate the science I find more believable, but at the end of the day, I'm just unconvinced.

[Leafsnail]

Pretty much all of the data is available to be seen in journals and so forth.  It isn't exactly hidden away.

[LegoLord]

Yeah.  All the media does is report new findings.  Anyone can find anything they want if they just know where to look.

[Sevrun]

That's true Leaf, but a lot of them will show what they want you to see rather than the whole truth.  Which is understandable given the sheer amount of data you'd have to put into a relatively small journal.  But that doesn't make me any more likely to believe them when what they tell me isn't reflected in what I see around me.  I also don't seem enough evidence around me to consider them outright liars.

  As far as doing some serious study on the matter...  I'm swamped with trying to keep up with a Ba. in Network security atm.

[Leafsnail]

Well, here's the question.

Why would scientists want to be deceiving us?  It's not like they're paid by the amount of carbon dioxide that isn't produced every year...

[Cthulhu]

Grant money.  If they can convince the government that the sky is falling, the government will pay them millions of dollars to build a net to catch it.

[Sevrun]

Try billions.  It's turned into a multi-billion dollar business, which is why they were scrambling to repackage it as 'climate change' instead of global warming after a couple of winters that were bitterly cold instead of not getting any snow.  Besides, from what I'm hearing there's science that disproves it as much as proves it.  Which makes it seem like Science-Drama to me.

[Leafsnail]

Sevrun...

Would you mind, you know, actually pointing to this science that "disproves" it?

And the idea of scientists participating in a global conspiracy in order to get grant money... well, it seems about as likely as all lawyers conspiring together to commit crimes and stay in work.

[LegoLord]

Except that the government has its own scientists.  Scientists aren't this massive unified organization.  They are hundreds upon thousands of tiny little groups, some consisting of a single individual, with different goals and morals.  They may have standards to ease communication, but that's all that connects them.  Once you get past that, they're nearly as independent as cats.

And I have no idea what you're talking about with "science that disproves science."  That's kind of impossible.  If two people researching the same thing independently get different results, one or both of them isn't following the scientific method properly, most likely.

[Aqizzar]

Besides, from what I'm hearing there's science that disproves it as much as proves it.  Which makes it seem like Science-Drama to me.

This.  This right here - you're picking and choosing what you want to listen to.

For the record, I had a professor, not even of any physical science but of economics, who told us about how he was invited all-expenses-paid to a "Science Convention" of some kind as a forum to "disprove" climate change.  He turned them down flat, along with 97% of the invitees.  What you heard is pure, bought and paid, bologna.