Global Climate Change Science News

[Animavore]

Here's a nifty tool.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... y-teaspoon

Scientists get tool to mark online climate science media coverage and it's not a rusty teaspoon

Using the Climate Feedback tool, scientists have started to diligently add detailed annotations to online content and have those notes appear alongside the story as it originally appeared.

If you’re the writer, then it’s a bit like getting your homework handed back to you with the margins littered with corrections and red pen. Or smiley faces and gold stars if you’ve been good.

Not sure how it's going to move any denialists as we already know that their objections to climate change are based in politics and not science (as is embarrassingly demonstrated by their use of conspricy theory and paranoid buzzwords like "Green on the outside. Red on the inside"). Nor do I think it's going to show us anything we didn't already know. We already know the likes of The Telegraph, The Daily Mail and Breitbart are utterly useless and outright liers when it comes to climate science reporting.

Some stories have come out with solid endorsements. Others, not so much.

The scientists looked at a recent story in the UK’s Daily Telegraph under the headline “Earth heading for ‘mini ice-age’ within fifteen years”.

Six climate scientists have analyzed the article and they estimate its overall scientific credibility to be ‘low’ to ‘very low’.

Maybe it might have an effect on journalism trustworthiness.

[Animavore]

I notice the mods haven't yet acted on my request to move non-science, off-topic articles from this thread. Remember why this thread was started.

This is hopefully a stickied continuation from the threads of the same name at Dawkins....

This thread is for Science News Only and not intended for discussions whether or not climate change occurs or whether there are conspiracies, political agendas, etc.

for the moment until dawkins closes here are the links to the threads....all 115 pages of articles from main stream climate and science sources

Most current
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... =5&t=74571

previous thread

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?p=1739008

Would like to keep the same format without discussion but with full attribution etc pending mod approval

I'm not sure where the mods can put the off-topic posts. I just realised we don't have any sub-forum for pseudoscience or conspiracy theories. I suppose they can move them here... http://rationalia.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=60

[mistermack]

If all of the non science was removed, the thread would be almost empty.

What you crave is a thread for alarmist propaganda only, without any criticism.

That might be a cosy read, but won't turn faithful worship of the idea into facts.

[Tero]

each of the skeptics, individually, would have to go a decade without seeing naturally occurring ice anywhere

Are you up to the challenge?
http://www.theonion.com/article/climate ... tion-51129

[mistermack]

each of the skeptics, individually, would have to go a decade without seeing naturally occurring ice anywhere

Are you up to the challenge?
http://www.theonion.com/article/climate ... tion-51129

It's your lot that the onion is taking the piss out of.
Not me.

[Seth]

I forgot to mention that I have the freemarket fundamentalist and the useful idiot on ignore, so replying to me is a waste of time. That was part of me coming back after a small break, that I'm removing trolls from my life.
I'm making more of an effort to only talk to intelligent and mature people who have knowledge to impart on me. Arguing with conpiray theorists and sience deniers is bad.

Which is of course a lie, because if you did, you wouldn't have said anything.

There's nothing in Animavore's post he cannot have said while having you on ignore.

Indeed, but as I said...I am irresistible.

[Seth]

Here's a nifty tool.
...

Maybe it might have an effect on journalism trustworthiness.

Nifty indeed, presuming for the moment that one actually believes that the sort of people who participate in using this tool are credible and believable and aren't, as is often maintained, lying through their teeth to preserve their ability to get government grants or stoke their egos and/or build cred within the journalistic community so that journalists will seek THEM out for comment, which of course raises their public profile and enhances their career opportunities by placing them in the limelight, which appears to be the case with most of the "science pundits" who spend their time talking to CNN and the New York Times while flogging their latest book or project.

Oh, wait, I'm not supposed to mention the profit motive or that the Emperor has no clothes am I?

My bad...

[Seth]

If all of the non science was removed, the thread would be almost empty.

What you crave is a thread for alarmist propaganda only, without any criticism.

That might be a cosy read, but won't turn faithful worship of the idea into facts.

We agree...wonder of wonders. RatSkep is the appropriate place for such echo-chamber tactics, so let me be the first to say "fuck off."

[Tero]

each of the skeptics, individually, would have to go a decade without seeing naturally occurring ice anywhere

Are you up to the challenge?
http://www.theonion.com/article/climate ... tion-51129

It's your lot that the onion is taking the piss out of.
Not me.

Yeah right. Onion will cost Trump the election. Hillary will rule.

[Hermit]

each of the skeptics, individually, would have to go a decade without seeing naturally occurring ice anywhere

Are you up to the challenge?
http://www.theonion.com/article/climate ... tion-51129

It's your lot that the onion is taking the piss out of.
Not me.

The skeptics laid out four conditions that must be met for them to accept that climate change isn’t simply a theory: 100 named hurricanes a year, the full evaporation of the Mississippi River, nine-month-long heat waves, and the complete extinction of every animal in the class Reptilia.

and

“For us to accept that the average surface temperature of the Earth has risen to critical levels due to mankind’s production of greenhouse gases, we’ll need to see some actual, visible evidence, including a global death toll of no less than 500 million people within a single calendar year,” said spokesperson William Davis, 46, of Jackson, NJ, who added that at least 70 percent of all islands on the planet would also have to become submerged under rising seas before he and his cohort would reconsider their beliefs. “To start, we’re going to have to see supercell tornadoes of category F4 or higher ripping through Oklahoma at least three times a day, leveling entire communities and causing hundreds of fatalities—and just to be perfectly clear, we’re talking year-round, not just during the spring tornado season.”

looks as though The Onion is actually taking the piss out of climate change deniers.

[Animavore]

[mistermack]

I think the onion is a bit too subtle for simple minds. You need to read it again.

They're taking the piss out of exaggerated alarmist articles.

[Hermit]

By making fun of denialist attitudes? I don't think so.

[mistermack]

By making fun of denialist attitudes? I don't think so.

Then you really don't understand humour.

That is a clear parody of an alarmist article, taking it to a ludicrous extreme.

That's what the onion does.

[Hermit]

You remind me of someone in another forum. He described himself as a Christian of some sort and tried to convince everybody that Jesus was an atheist. Much mirth ensued.