Global Warming: The actual charts

Discussion in 'World News, Current Events & Politics' started by Nerdtendo, Jul 16, 2019.

?
  1. Yes

    9 vote(s)
    56.3%
  2. Yes but the bottom option

    7 vote(s)
    43.8%
  1. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    18
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    It's not a legitimate number. See my post above.
     
  2. zomborg

    zomborg Makin Temp great again

    Member
    4
    Apr 17, 2015
    United States
    Poor Lacius, you had to go look it up on snopes to determine if the petition was true or false. :rofl:

    Guess what? Snopes is not reliable. Here's an article from, not a conspiracy website, not a conservative site but a mainstream and respected site:

    I'm sorry if it's a long read. You may not possess the attention span and will just say TL;DR

    FACT CHECKING THE FACT CHECKERS

    "Yesterday afternoon a colleague forwarded me an article from the Daily Mail, asking me if it could possibly be true. The article in question is an expose on Snopes.com, the fact checking site used by journalists and citizens across the world and one of the sites that Facebook recently partnered with to fact check news stories on its platform. The Daily Mail’s article makes a number of claims about the site’s principles and organization, drawing heavily from the proceedings of a contentious divorce between the site’s founders and questioning whether the site could possibly act as a trusted and neutral arbitrator of the “truth.”

    When I first read through the Daily Mail article I immediately suspected the story itself must certainly be “fake news” because of how devastating the claims were and that given that Snopes.com was so heavily used by the journalistic community, if any of the claims were true, someone would have already written about them and companies like Facebook would not be partnering with them. I also noted that despite having been online for several hours, no other major mainstream news outlet had written about the story, which is typically a strong sign of a false or misleading story. Yet at the same time, the Daily Mail appeared to be sourcing its claims from a series of emails and other documents from a court case, some of which it reproduced in its article and, perhaps most strangely, neither Snopes nor its principles had issued any kind of statement through its website or social media channels disclaiming the story.

    On the surface this looked like a classic case of fake news – a scandalous and highly shareable story, incorporating official-looking materials and sourcing, yet with no other mainstream outlet even mentioning the story. I myself told my colleague I simply did not know what to think. Was this a complete fabrication by a disgruntled target of Snopes or was this really an explosive expose pulling back the curtain on one of the world’s most respected and famous fact checking brands?

    In fact, one of my first thoughts upon reading the article is that this is precisely how the “fake news” community would fight back against fact checking – by running a drip-drip of fake or misleading explosive stories to discredit and cast doubt upon the fact checkers.

    In the counter-intelligence world, this is what is known as a “wilderness of mirrors” – creating a chaotic information environment that so perfectly blends truth, half-truth and fiction that even the best can no longer tell what’s real and what’s not.

    Thus, when I reached out to David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, for comment, I fully expected him to respond with a lengthy email in Snopes’ trademark point-by-point format, fully refuting each and every one of the claims in the Daily Mail’s article and writing the entire article off as “fake news.”

    It was with incredible surprise therefore that I received David’s one-sentence response which read in its entirety “I’d be happy to speak with you, but I can only address some aspects in general because I’m precluded by the terms of a binding settlement agreement from discussing details of my divorce.”

    This absolutely astounded me. Here was the one of the world’s most respected fact checking organizations, soon to be an ultimate arbitrator of “truth” on Facebook, saying that it cannot respond to a fact checking request because of a secrecy agreement.

    In short, when someone attempted to fact check the fact checker, the response was the equivalent of “it’s secret.”

    It is impossible to understate how antithetical this is to the fact checking world, in which absolute openness and transparency are necessary prerequisites for trust. How can fact checking organizations like Snopes expect the public to place trust in them if when they themselves are called into question, their response is that they can’t respond.

    When I presented a set of subsequent clarifying questions to David, he provided responses to some and not to others. Of particular interest, when pressed about claims by the Daily Mail that at least one Snopes employee has actually run for political office and that this presents at the very least the appearance of potential bias in Snopes’ fact checks, David responded “It’s pretty much a given that anyone who has ever run for (or held) a political office did so under some form of party affiliation and said something critical about their opponent(s) and/or other politicians at some point. Does that mean anyone who has ever run for office is manifestly unsuited to be associated with a fact-checking endeavor, in any capacity?”

    That is actually a fascinating response to come from a fact checking organization that prides itself on its claimed neutrality. Think about it this way – what if there was a fact checking organization whose fact checkers were all drawn from the ranks of Breitbart and Infowars? Most liberals would likely dismiss such an organization as partisan and biased. Similarly, an organization whose fact checkers were all drawn from Occupy Democrats and Huffington Post might be dismissed by conservatives as partisan and biased. In fact, when I asked several colleagues for their thoughts on this issue this morning, the unanimous response back was that people with strong self-declared political leanings on either side should not be a part of a fact checking organization and all had incorrectly assumed that Snopes would have felt the same way and had a blanket policy against placing partisan individuals as fact checkers.

    In fact, this is one of the reasons that fact checking organizations must be transparent and open. If an organization like Snopes feels it is ok to hire partisan employees who have run for public office on behalf of a particular political party and employ them as fact checkers where they have a high likelihood of being asked to weigh in on material aligned with or contrary to their views, how can they reasonably be expected to act as neutral arbitrators of the truth?

    Put another way, some Republicans believe firmly that climate change is a falsehood and that humans are not responsible in any way for climatic change. Those in the scientific community might object to an anti-climate change Republican serving as a fact checker for climate change stories at Snopes and flagging every article about a new scientific study on climate change as fake news. Yet, we have no way of knowing the biases of the fact checkers at Snopes – we simply have to trust that the site’s views on what constitutes neutrality are the same as ours.

    When I asked for comment on the specific detailed criteria Snopes uses to screen its applicants and decide who to hire as a fact checker, surprisingly David demurred, saying only that the site looks for applicants across all fields and skills. He specifically did not provide any detail of any kind regarding the screening process and how Snopes evaluates potential hires. David also did not respond to further emails asking whether, as part of the screening process, Snopes has applicants fact check a set of articles to evaluate their reasoning and research skills and to gain insight into their thinking process.

    This was highly unexpected, as I had assumed that a fact checking site as reputable as Snopes would have a detailed written formal evaluation process for new fact checkers that would include having them perform a set of fact checks and include a lengthy set of interview questions designed to assess their ability to identify potential or perceived conflicts of interest and work through potential biases.

    Even more strangely, despite asking in two separate emails how Snopes assesses its fact checkers and whether it performs intra- and inter-rater reliability assessments, David responded only that fact checkers work together collaboratively and did not respond to further requests for more detail and did not answer whether Snopes uses any sort of assessment scoring or ongoing testing process to assess its fact checkers.

    This raises exceptionally grave concerns about the internal workings of Snopes and why it is not more forthcoming about its assessment process. Arguing that because multiple fact checkers might work on an article, reliability is not a concern, is a false argument that shows a concerning lack of understanding about reliability and accuracy. Imagine a team of 50 staunch climate deniers all working collaboratively to debunk a new scientific study showing a clear link between industrial pollution and climate change. The very large team size does not make up for the lack of diversity of opinion. Yet, David provided no comment on how Snopes does or does not explicitly force diversity of opinion in its ad-hoc fact checking teams.

    A robust human rating workflow must regularly assess the accuracy and reproducibility of the scores generated by its human raters, even when they work collaboratively together. Typically this means that on a regular basis each fact checker or fact checker team is given the same article to fact check and the results compared across the groups. If one person or group regularly generates different results from the others, this is then evaluated to understand why. Similarly, an individual or group is also periodically given the same or nearly identical story from months prior to see if they give it the same rating as last time – this assesses whether they are consistent in their scoring.

    More troubling is that we simply don’t know who contributed to a given fact check. David noted that Snopes’ “process is a highly collaborative one in which several different people may contribute to a single article,” but that “the result is typically credited to whoever wrote the initial draft.” David did not respond to a request for comment on why Snopes only lists a single author for each of its fact checks, rather than provide an acknowledgement section that lists all of the individuals who contributed to a given fact check.

    One might argue that newspapers similarly do not acknowledge their fact checkers in the bylines of articles. Yet, in a newspaper workflow, fact checking typically occurs as an editorial function, double checking what a reporter wrote. At Snopes, fact checking is the core function of an article and thus if multiple people contributed to a fact check, it is surprising that absolutely no mention is made of them, given that at a newspaper all reporters contributing to a story are listed. Not only does this rob those individuals of credit, but perhaps most critically, it makes it impossible for outside entities to audit who is contributing to what fact check and to ensure that fact checkers who self-identify as strongly supportive or against particular topics are not assigned to fact check those topics to prevent the appearance of conflicts of interest or bias.

    If privacy or safety of fact checkers is a concern, the site could simply use first name and last initials or pseudonyms. Having a master list of all fact checkers contributing in any way to a given fact check would go a long way towards establishing greater transparency to the fact checking process and Snopes’ internal controls on conflict of interest and bias.

    David also did not respond to a request for comment on why Snopes fact checks rarely mention that they reached out to the authors of the article being fact checked to get their side of the story. Indeed, Journalism 101 teaches you that when you write an article presenting someone or something in a negative light, you must give them the opportunity to respond and provide their side of the story. Instead, Snopes typically focuses on the events being depicted in the article and contacts individuals and entities named in the story, but Snopes fact checks typically do not mention contacting the authors of the articles about those events to see if those reporters claim to have additional corroborating material, perhaps disclosed to them off the record.

    In essence, in these cases Snopes performs “fact checking from afar,” rendering judgement on news stories without giving the original reporters the opportunity for comment. David did not respond to a request for comment on this or why the site does not have a dedicated appeals page for authors of stories which Snopes has labeled false to contest that label and he also did not respond to a request to provide further detail on whether Snopes has a written formal appeals process or how it handles such requests.

    Putting this all together, we simply don’t know if the Daily Mail story is completely false, completely true or somewhere in the middle. Snopes itself has not issued a formal response to the article and its founder David Mikkelson responded by email that he was unable to address many of the claims due to a confidentiality clause in his divorce settlement. This creates a deeply unsettling environment in which when one tries to fact check the fact checker, the answer is the equivalent of “its secret.” Moreover, David’s responses regarding the hiring of strongly partisan fact checkers and his lack of response on screening and assessment protocols present a deeply troubling picture of a secretive black box that acts as ultimate arbitrator of truth, yet reveals little of its inner workings. This is precisely the same approach used by Facebook for its former Trending Topics team and more recently its hate speech rules (the company did not respond to a request for comment).

    From the outside, Silicon Valley looks like a gleaming tower of technological perfection. Yet, once the curtain is pulled back, we see that behind that shimmering façade is a warehouse of good old fashioned humans, subject to all the same biases and fallibility, but with their results now laundered through the sheen of computerized infallibility. Even my colleagues who work in the journalism community and by their nature skeptical, had assumed that Snopes must have rigorous screening procedures, constant inter- and intra-rater evaluations and ongoing assessments and a total transparency mandate. Yet, the truth is that we simply have no visibility into the organization’s inner workings and its founder declined to shed further light into its operations for this article.

    Regardless of whether the Daily Mail article is correct in its claims about Snopes, at the least what does emerge from my exchanges with Snopes’ founder is the image of the ultimate black box presenting a gleaming veneer of ultimate arbitration of truth, yet with absolutely no insight into its inner workings. While technology pundits decry the black boxes of the algorithms that increasingly power companies like Facebook, they have forgotten that even the human-powered sites offer us little visibility into how they function.

    At the end of the day, it is clear that before we rush to place fact checking organizations like Snopes in charge of arbitrating what is “truth” on Facebook, we need to have a lot more understanding of how they function internally and much greater transparency into their work."

    Source
     
  3. Ratatattat

    Ratatattat GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Mar 16, 2016
    United States
    Typical Lacius battering when you can't handle the truth.
     
    Last edited by Ratatattat, Jul 17, 2019
  4. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    18
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    1. I didn't have to look at Snopes to determine if the petition was true or false. I already knew it was false.
    2. I posted a link to Snopes for your own benefit and research (similar to when I or someone else refers to a compendium like Wikipedia), but I guess I was expecting too much to think you might research it and look at the facts objectively.

    1. Snopes is not an authority, and it's not infallible, but it's a good starting point for someone wanting to actually research the issue.
    2. Snopes is very reputable. In 2012, a random sampling of Snopes pages found no errors and no biases.
    3. Your "30,000 signatures" post is a fake, regardless of what Snopes has to say about it, so anything you have to say about Snopes is irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you want to continue to perpetuate the "30,000 signatures" meme, you need to address what makes it false, not Snopes itself.
    4. Similarly to #3, your post about "30,000 signatures," if it had been true (it's not), is also irrelevant to whether or not human-caused climate change is a real concern (it is).

    1. Your article doesn't actually list any substantive criticisms of Snopes. It's as though you Googled "Snopes bad" and pasted the first thing that came up without reading it. I suppose you did not possess the attention span needed to read it.
    2. If you are going to use evidence in a debate setting, it's important that you summarize the point that you're attempted to demonstrate with a source. In other words, it's not enough to drop a large source and run; you need to explain why it's relevant. "Snopes bad, here read" isn't sufficient. If you want someone to read a source, particularly if it's long, you need to explain its relevance. Was the criticism that Snopes is biased? Because that's not in the article, and it's not true. Was the criticism that Snopes is inaccurate? Because that's not in the article, and it's not true. When I told you the "30,000 signatures" meme was false, I included a short summary of what made it false. I didn't say, "Meme bad, here read."
    Edit: I'm also not particularly impressed when people resort to personal attacks in lieu of argumentation, and you should know I don't usually address them. They usually mean one's arguments are bad.
     
    Last edited by Lacius, Jul 17, 2019
  5. dAVID_

    dAVID_ Carpinter's Apprentice

    Member
    8
    Oct 23, 2016
    Mexico
    The Game
    ghjfdtg, Xzi and Lacius like this.
  6. zomborg

    zomborg Makin Temp great again

    Member
    4
    Apr 17, 2015
    United States
    And that's your opinion. You are no different from any other liberal or conservative. You believe what you believe and it doesn't matter what anyone else tells you. You say look at it objectively and yet you do not practice what you preach. You do not look at things in an objective manner yourself. You think that what you have read is correct and whether it really is or not, it is what you want to believe, therefore none can change your mind. It is evident that you do not practice objectivity in your simple, smug statement that you are usually always right. So even if you read evidence to the contrary, even if you read evidence that clearly proves what you believe to be false, because you think you are always right, your arrogance will not allow you to admit it. Instead, the first thing that will pop into your mind is well, that's false, that's a conspiracy theory. Let me check snopes....... Yep yep I knew it wasn't true!

    Here again, you were expecting too much. I'm not insulting you and I'm not resorting to personal attacks in lieu of debate, but your posts have been laced with (not just in this thread. Pick 1) words like "idiocy" and "your argument is absurd" and "you're being ridiculous" and when I decide not to argue by saying perhaps you are right" you come back with the classic "I am right. I'm usually right".

    And then there's this little nugget from your earlier post :
    "If you're not going to bother researching your own points because you've come to the conclusion that aligns with your conservative worldview because it's what the anti-abortion folks tell you to believe, you're going to continue to, respectfully, make idiotic statements about climate change."
    I've already covered this but once again, the same can be said of you. You think you are always right, therefore any comment or proof presented to counter what you believe in your smugness will be automatically dismissed.
    It is quite evident, since you are so smug in your mental superiority, that you set out, in each thread to make anyone with an opposing viewpoint look like an idiot and no it's not because the responses they post sound idiotic, it is because you appear to enjoy "debunking" their words and telling them how stupid they sound. In another recent thread SG854 called you out on an Assholish comment you made which I'm sure was unsettling for you because people rarely call you out.

    It's a good starting point for the uninitiated. It's a lazy man's option and because everybody thinks since they are a fact checking site it must be right

    Again your opinion when not rooted in fact. Also no source provided. Wait let me guess, you asked snopes.
    Again, as above, your opinion. I'm thankful you are not the authority on climate change.


    Oh, I read every word of the article I posted but it is quite evident you did not. What was it I said about attention span?

    To summarize the journalist at Forbes, wrote his article in response to an expose released by Daily Mail. The daily mail article produced official court documents and stated that the founder of
    Snopes David Mikkelson was engaged in many illegal activities. Not the least of which were embezzling funds and lying to cover it up.

    At first the Forbes writer thought it had to be a fake story because no other media outlet covered it. So he emailed Mikkelson and questioned him only to be stunned with his not so transparent reply. Mikkelson said he could answer a few questions but not all.

    Here are quotes from Forbes :

    "Daily Mail’s article makes a number of claims about the site’s principles and organization and questioning whether the site could possibly act as a trusted and neutral arbitrator of the “truth.”

    " perhaps most strangely, neither Snopes nor its principles had issued any kind of statement through its website or social media channels disclaiming the story."

    "When I reached out to David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, for comment, I fully expected him to respond with a lengthy email in Snopes’ trademark point-by-point format, fully refuting each and every one of the claims in the Daily Mail’s article and writing the entire article off as “fake news.”

    "It was with incredible surprise therefore that I received David’s one-sentence response which read in its entirety “I’d be happy to speak with you, but I can only address some aspects in general"

    "This absolutely astounded me. Here was the one of the world’s most respected fact checking organizations, soon to be an ultimate arbitrator of “truth” on Facebook, saying that it cannot respond to a fact checking request because of a secrecy agreement."


    " In short, when someone attempted to fact check the fact checker, the response was the equivalent of “it’s secret.”

    "It is impossible to understate how antithetical this is to the fact checking world, in which absolute openness and transparency are necessary prerequisites for trust. How can fact checking organizations like Snopes expect the public to place trust in them if when they themselves are called into question, their response is that they can’t respond? "

    " we have no way of knowing the biases of the fact checkers at Snopes – we simply have to trust that the site’s views on what constitutes neutrality are the same as ours."


    " When I asked for comment on the specific detailed criteria Snopes uses to screen its applicants and decide who to hire as a fact checker, surprisingly David demurred, saying only that the site looks for applicants across all fields and skills. He specifically did not provide any detail of any kind regarding the screening process and how Snopes evaluates potential hires. David also did not respond to further emails asking whether, as part of the screening process, Snopes has applicants fact check a set of articles to evaluate their reasoning and research skills and to gain insight into their thinking process."

    " Even more strangely, despite asking in two separate emails how Snopes assesses its fact checkers and whether it performs intra- and inter-rater reliability assessments, David responded only that fact checkers work together collaboratively and
    did not respond to further requests for more detail and did not answer whether Snopes uses any sort of assessment scoring or ongoing testing process to assess its fact checkers."

    " This raises exceptionally grave concerns about the internal workings of Snopes and why it is not more forthcoming about its assessment process. Arguing that because multiple fact checkers might work on an article, reliability is not a concern, is a false argument that shows a concerning lack of understanding about reliability and accuracy. David provided no comment on how Snopes does or does not explicitly force diversity of opinion in its ad-hoc fact checking teams."

    " More troubling is that we simply don’t know who contributed to a given fact check. David noted that Snopes’ “process is a highly collaborative one in which several different people may contribute to a single article,” but that “the result is typically credited to whoever wrote the initial draft.” David did not respond to a request for comment on why Snopes only lists a single author for each of its fact checks, rather than provide an acknowledgement section that lists all of the individuals who contributed to a given fact check."

    " David also did not respond to a request for comment on why Snopes fact checks rarely mention that they reached out to the authors of the article being fact checked to get their side of the story. Indeed, Journalism 101 teaches you that when you write an article presenting someone or something in a negative light, you must give them the opportunity to respond and provide their side of the story but Snopes fact checks typically do not mention contacting the authors of the articles about those events to see if those reporters claim to have additional corroborating material, perhaps disclosed to them off the record."

    " In essence, in these cases Snopes performs “fact checking from afar,” rendering judgement on news stories without giving the original reporters the opportunity for comment. David did not respond to a request for comment on this or why the site does not have a dedicated appeals page for authors of stories which Snopes has labeled false to contest that label and he also did not respond to a request to provide further detail on whether Snopes has a written formal appeals process or how it handles such requests."

    " This creates a deeply unsettling environment in which when one tries to fact check the fact checker, the answer is the equivalent of “its secret.” Moreover, David’s responses regarding the hiring of strongly partisan fact checkers and his lack of response on screening and assessment protocols present a deeply troubling picture of a secretive black box that acts as ultimate arbitrator of truth, yet reveals little of its inner workings."

    " once the curtain is pulled back, we see that behind that shimmering façade is a warehouse of good old fashioned humans, subject to all the same biases and fallibility, but with their results now laundered through the sheen of computerized infallibility. Even my colleagues who work in the journalism community and by their nature skeptical, had assumed that Snopes must have rigorous screening procedures, constant inter- and intra-rater evaluations and ongoing assessments and a total transparency mandate. Yet, the truth is that we simply have no visibility into the organization’s inner workings and its founder declined to shed further light into its operations for this article"

    "what does emerge from my exchanges with Snopes’ founder is the image of the ultimate black box presenting a gleaming veneer of ultimate arbitration of truth, yet with absolutely no insight into its inner workings. While technology pundits decry the black boxes of the algorithms that increasingly power companies like Facebook, they have forgotten that even the human-powered sites offer us little visibility into how they function."
     
  7. Xzi

    Xzi A terrible fate fills you with determination

    pip Contributor
    19
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    Zomborg really out here dropping a wall of text tryin' to defend the legitimacy of some geocities-looking website straight out of the early 90s. :rofl:
     
    zomborg, ghjfdtg and Lacius like this.
  8. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    18
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    Forgive me if I don't take the time to respond to your post point by point. A few things though:
    1. The "30,000 signatures" meme is objectively untrue, regardless of how you feel about it or Snopes. It's not a matter of opinion.
    2. Problems with the "30,000 signatures" meme include (but aren't limited to) being unverifiable and not actually being about climate scientists.
    3. I don't think I am always right, so don't put words in my mouth.
    4. This is demonstrably one of the times I am right.
    5. I'm not particularly interested in talking about whether or not you think I'm smug. It's impossible to understate how much your opinion of me matters to me, and the whole thing serves as a petty distraction.
    6. I don't have to be the authority on climate change to be able to communicate the science.
    7. Aside from "I personally don't know their fact-checking process," neither you nor your article articulated any problem with Snopes.
    8. Snopes has been demonstrated to be fairly reputable.
    9. The reputation of Snopes is irrelevant to whether or not the "30,000 signatures" meme is correct (it's not). We can pretend Snopes is majorly biased (it's not), and it doesn't change anything.
    10. The "30,000 signatures" meme is irrelevant to whether or not human-caused climate change is real (it is). We can pretend your "30,000 signatures" are valid (they aren't), and it doesn't change anything.
    Considering #9 and #10, you wasted quite a lot of time on your post for no good reason.

    Edit: Oh, and here's a source and here's a source and here's a source for the reputation of Snopes, not that it matters to the topic at all.
     
    Last edited by Lacius, Jul 18, 2019
    dAVID_, ghjfdtg and Xzi like this.
  9. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
  10. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    18
    May 11, 2008
    United States
  11. supersonicwaffle

    supersonicwaffle GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    4
    Oct 15, 2018
    Germany
    I'm not reframing anything. Bikes work for me, I'm aware they don't work for everyone. I may have not gotten it across well enough but I would be in favor of personal choice of limitation because this whole thing will not work without personal limitation and I'm also aware that the same things don't work for everyone.
    On the other hand studies are quite clear that there's significant bike traffic increases if the infrastructure makes cyclists feel safe in traffic. Germany has been been guilty of planning traffic with only cars in mind since the 60s, a lot of bikepaths around here are actually illegal to use because you would put yourself in harms way. I don't know how things are around your town but over here we're struggling with traffic and even parking space has gotten an issue. You don't have to use a bike yourself but it would be very wise for any city to offer a safe alternative to motor traffic, especially now with e-bikes enabling more and more people to use it as a serious alternative.

    But we also have to stop thinking it's reasonable for a soceity to be essentially subsidizing wasteful behaviour by not taxing kerosene for example. Being energy efficient saves a lot of money so not doing that is just being bad at your job, the assertion that I'm just doing it to feel better about myself or "for heaven" how you call it is just retarded. I'm also fine with being wasteful with energy if you can afford it but the fact of the matter is that if environmental damage was properly priced in to energy products people just wouldn't be able to afford being wasteful.

    Of course living standards will have to be lowered, but that's pretty much the reality of things.

    Personally never heard people talk positively of it for low skill jobs, for high skill jobs it can be very liberating for the worker. There's a reason why Freelancer status in Germany is only granted for specific occupations or require a certain level of education and I agree with that.

    GDPR has hampered a lot of growth in that sector within the EU. EU countries have a very different idea about the fourth industrial revolution than the US and china. People think automation only applies to manual labor, which in reality automation levels there have been steadily increasing since Henry Ford introduced the assembly line, soceity has had enough time to adapt since then. Automation of office jobs requires huge amounts of data for machine learning. The integration levels the industry desires for automation will likely be a massive cost factor for acquisition of licenses that will end up being spent outside of the EU and likely slow adoption rate here.
    On top of that I implore people to keep the hype cycle in mind. I may sound like a broken record but it's a real thing. The tech industry likes to communicate ideas about what is potentially possible after a breakthrough event and is too euphoric and optimistic about it. It's nothing malicious really, most of the time it's just excited engineers who haven't found the technology's limitations during late stage development yet. Some aspects of cloud technology for example have recently hit the plateau of productivity and it's become evident that its use cases are much more limited than initially thought.
    Elon Musk is certainly one of the most guilty here, his communication of what is actually possible with upcomping technology is bordering on ludicrousness, just last year Tesla had to walk back a bunch of automation because it caused them to be way behind in manufacturing.
     
    Last edited by supersonicwaffle, Jul 18, 2019
    ghjfdtg and notimp like this.
  12. notimp

    notimp GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    10
    Sep 18, 2007
    I'm overreacting. But I really kind of hate the entire pivot that was possible in society because of childrens smiles. Makes me feel like people are - idk, less likely to be receptive to actual arguments.

    Even that they are still susceptible to metaphors of religious saints, (Richard David Precht said the exact same thing (allthough in a different context), so its not just me.. ;)) all those years after...

    Also - dont like the whole -yes- lets have millennials enter their third recession in their lives, because not even green party leaders seem to want to assess probability of key buyer markets for german offshore wind farms in 20 years time...

    I basically dont like everything about it (the FfF movement part, not the actual issue). Which makes me partial - and not receptive for most arguments, that dont see it that way.. ;)

    Well, at least I see how that goes with other folks in here... (Yourself excluded.). ;)
     
    Last edited by notimp, Jul 18, 2019
  13. Glyptofane

    Glyptofane Death Dealer

    Member
    7
    Feb 12, 2009
    United States
    Snopes is definitely biased. They are evil liars. I'll agree maybe it's a good starting point such as Wikipedia, but you will only get partial truths at best. Maybe they are correct about this specific climate change horseshit. The fake computer models are too meaningless to me to care about it anymore. The proposed measures are deceptions to impose wealth confiscation at the minimum and one world government as the end goal. These ghouls don't even care about the planet, they just want your money and control over you. I consider myself a dark hippy and actually care about the planet and all life, even the evil stupid life to a degree. I can tell when someone or multiple millions of them are bullshitting me.
     
    zomborg likes this.
  14. Nerdtendo
    OP

    Nerdtendo Your friendly neighborhood idiot

    Member
    8
    Sep 29, 2016
    United States
    Y'all look like your having some fun. Make sure you play nice
     
  15. Ratatattat

    Ratatattat GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Mar 16, 2016
    United States
    Kinda difficult to play nice when the other guy in the sandbox keeps diggin' up the cat turds.
     
  16. zomborg

    zomborg Makin Temp great again

    Member
    4
    Apr 17, 2015
    United States
    You may not be interested in my opinion of you but those statements I just quoted serve to illustrate my point about how you think you are mentally superior to all who would engage in debate with you.

    To use your own words, it also cannot be understated, how little your opinion of me matters.

    Since you apparently are having issues concentrating, let's skip the topic of the obvious untrustworthiness of Snopes as a reputable source of truth.

    You, as with most climate alarmists, center most of your arguments around the harmful effects of C02. Let's address that first shall we? I will reserve other points for a later time as I'm sure this will be adequate to keep your hamster wheel spinning for the present.

    A few bullet points if I may:

    1. Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.
    2. If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
    3. It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.
    4. There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures - in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.
    5. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
    6. It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere
    7. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control
    8. Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
    9. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
    10. Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher - more than ten times as high.
    11. Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history.
    12. Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds
    13. Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas (C02) in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”
    14. Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
    15. Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.
    16. Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water - including CO2, calcium, and water - can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.
    17. William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organization, wrote, “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1°C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”
    18. Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback - and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.
    19. A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.
    20. Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.
    21. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming
    22. The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years
    23. Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms
    24. Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests.
     
  17. Lacius

    Lacius GBAtemp Legend

    Member
    18
    May 11, 2008
    United States
    I don't think I'm mentally superior to anyone here, and I never said I was. Putting words in my mouth only serves to demonstrate how disingenuous you are, and I'm not particularly interested in having conversations with people who are intentionally disingenuous.

    As I've demonstrated, I don't have issues concentrating. You're being presumptuous, condescending, and ridiculous. If you had read my posts, you would know that Snopes doesn't need to be discussed because the topic of Snopes is irrelevant, and I explained why. Perhaps you have issues concentrating.

    I'm not particularly interested in responding to copy/pasted bullet points from discredited sources. I'll simplify my response:

    1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

    2. Earth's temperatures over the past 800,000 years correspond directly with carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
    1.

    3. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are rising at a rate never before seen on Earth, and the rate has been increasing.
    3.

    4. Carbon dioxide levels are increasing as a direct result of burning fossil fuels.
    2.

    If you want to argue against one or more of my four points (directly, and using your own words), great. Otherwise, I'm not particularly interested in continuing this conversation for the reasons I stated above.
     
  18. Loyalty

    Loyalty Member

    Newcomer
    1
    May 19, 2019
    United States
    Yeah, lets kill all the Vegans that demand more and more Soy burgers...
    The majority of Rain forests are being cut for farm land to grow Soy.

    http://www.rainforestrelief.org/What_to_Avoid_and_Alternatives/Soy.html

    Heck if you want to get down to it, cutting down the rainforests would actually increase the oxygen produced... seems all the carbon stored in trees rots at the base under the trees and the forest is not the "lungs of the Earth"...

    Don't take my word for it, here is a tree-hugger admitting it.

    https://medium.com/@frederic_38110/rain-forests-lungs-of-the-earth-8eae87573e7c
     
    zomborg likes this.
  19. Psionic Roshambo

    Psionic Roshambo GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    8
    Aug 12, 2011
    United States
    My issue with all this global warming BS, is that global warming IS real. It's been warming up since the last ice age... I don't think there is anything we can do about it except advance tech and hope the scientists can come up with something that will terraform this planet until we can get off this rock.
     
  20. Psionic Roshambo

    Psionic Roshambo GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    8
    Aug 12, 2011
    United States
    double post (lag?)
     
    Last edited by Psionic Roshambo, Jul 18, 2019 - Reason: Lag post?
  21. zomborg

    zomborg Makin Temp great again

    Member
    4
    Apr 17, 2015
    United States
    Typical response but it really doesn't surprise me. You glance at my list of 24 points to refute climate alarmists and you are either too lazy to take the time to read them, much less respond to them or do not possess the knowledge to adequately refute them. So instead you use the trusty old excuse that they are from discredited sources so that you don't have to respond. Very revealing.

    Then, also typical, you bring out the colorful charts. Yes I'm sure they are enough to placate the simple minded and distract them with pretty colors but, just as you pointed the finger at me saying you only want to address me if I use my own words and not copy/paste from other sources, your nasa link and pictures are not your own. They are copy/pasted from other sources.


    But let's play patty cake and go ahead and address your 4 points:

    I agree. Yes C02 can be deadly but as I stated in my previous post:

    "Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
    And
    "It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere."

    Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

    Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

    After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

    Temperature increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

    Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in what was known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that data has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming.

    The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

    Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

    It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates.

    The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago


    Let's address these 2 last points together for the sake of convenience.
    I agree the rate is increasing but:

    Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

    Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of temperature and climate change.

    It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

    One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

    Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests.

    So in essence, my point is, whether you deny it or not, There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity. Yes yes, I know you will say but but what about the charts? What about the mountains of studies conducted and research done?

    A good example of this is the Michael Mann hockey stick chart
    [​IMG]
    But in modern times when McShane and Wyner input all of the exact same data as Mann in an effort to duplicate his results, though they tried repeatedly they were not able to replicate his results. As you see from their chart.
    [​IMG]
    And of course climate alarmists will immediately tell us this too was already debunked long ago but you see that's the thing. Your so called experts will say that their data is the ONLY accurate data then our experts will debunk it and then yours will debunk our debunk and on and on into infinity.

    Make no mistake, there are very intelligent scientists on both sides of this but the difference is the left has the superior funding and the support of the media. Which makes it much easier to quickly stamp out results that are presented to the contrary and thus just label them as fake, untrue and conspiracy.

    [​IMG]
    This picture sums it up quite adequately.
     
Loading...