Breitbart misrepresents research from 58 scientific papers

[Torto]

The computer models are rigorous and mutually supportive. They have also accurately predicted warming over the last 30 years that they've been maintained. They're not in any way "questionable".

And yet scientists cannot tell us when the tipping point is reached and there is no going back. They are all very eager to tell us how much the planet has warmed the last 100 years, but ask them how much it will definitively warm in the future and they get very vague. Please, if you have a link where a reputable scientist will tell us when, based off current co2 emissions, the planet dies then tell me. I've tried google to no avail.

Also, explain to me why Australia, which contributes less than 1.5% of global carbon emissions has to reduce anything at all. My power bills have doubled since the AGW scam became a political issue and all we have to show for it is a bunch of weak socialists jet setting around the globe telling everyone how wonderful we are.

[Endus]

And yet scientists cannot tell us when the tipping point is reached and there is no going back. They are all very eager to tell us how much the planet has warmed the last 100 years, but ask them how much it will definitively warm in the future and they get very vague.

If you mean the tipping point where anthropogenic emissions will lead to continued warming even if we cut new emissions to zero, we passed that already. It was September 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ld-permanently

If you mean something else, you're going to have to be more clear.

As for being definitive about how much warming there will be in the future; the problem with that is that scientists aren't literally psychic. They have no way of knowing for sure how much emissions will change in those intervening years. They have no idea if there will be some unexpected natural event, like a sudden shift in solar radiation, that may affect all this without reference to anthropogenic factors. There may be a major volcanic event, which also couldn't be predicted, which generally have significant short-term climate effects.

You're complaining that scientists don't profess to have supernatural psychic powers. Which is a ridiculous expectation.

Please, if you have a link where a reputable scientist will tell us when, based off current co2 emissions, the planet dies then tell me. I've tried google to no avail.

Nobody's really talking about "the planet dying". We're talking about major impacts to human society.

Also, explain to me why Australia, which contributes less than 1.5% of global carbon emissions has to reduce anything at all. My power bills have doubled since the AGW scam became a political issue and all we have to show for it is a bunch of weak socialists jet setting around the globe telling everyone how wonderful we are.

Because when the problem is "too many people are pissing into the pool", saying "but I'm not pissing THAT much" isn't really that great an argument.

[Ragedaug]

The changes from usual climate patterns, though? Things like sea level rise globally, the average global temperature increase? That sort of stuff? That is down solely to anthropogenic emissions. We know this. It's known fact.

Average global temperature increase does not cause the sea level to rise. That's a fact. We've tracked rises and falls in temperature with no correlation to sea level. So you wonder, how it is possible with more ice melted that the sea doesn't rise? It's because as the temp rises and melts ice, the warmer air causes more water to evaporate. There's more water in the air, and in turn more rain fall. The warmer it gets, the smaller the deserts around the world get. The warmer it gets the less arid zones we get. The warmer it gets, the greener the planet gets.

This is how the planet balances.

The computer models are rigorous and mutually supportive. They have also accurately predicted warming over the last 30 years that they've been maintained. They're not in any way "questionable".

Computer climate models have been wrong for as long as they've been made. It's most likely due to the fact that most the people putting those models out have an agenda. The climate this year is nothing like what the fear mongering from 15 years ago would have us believe.


I'm all for renewable energy and a cleaner environment. I drive an electric car and would be very happy if I never had to drive an explosion-mobile again. IMO, they're archaic and burning fossil fuels is dumb to say the least. I can't stand dirty cities, and due to that live out in the country. I love the woods, green plants, and clean air.

I'm just saying, lets be honest about our motivations. Lets get real about what we can achieve without crippling our economy and technological advancement. Let's stop the fear mongering and fake news about the man destroying the world. Whether or not man survives, the world will be fine. It will adjust and auto-correct and will get along fine with or without us. We are less than fleas on this orb and have decided we are way more important than we really are.

[Torto]

Nobody's really talking about "the planet dying". We're talking about major impacts to human society.

Which none can agree what those impacts will be. According to some alarmists we should all be under 5m of seawater by now.

Because when the problem is "too many people are pissing into the pool", saying "but I'm not pissing THAT much" isn't really that great an argument.

And that is just an awful analogy, but pretty symbolic of how alarmists argue the case and demonise co2. We are not talking about urine, we are talking about carbon, one of the important building blocks of life. Without it we die. No one says China or India shouldn't reduce emissions, you only have to look at Beijing for New Delhi to see the impact pollution is having. Yet as I look outside my window in sunny Australia, all I can see and smell is clean air.

The extra taxes and costs I incur to reduce co2 is purely symbolic. For those who believe in AGW it's a pretty raw deal, for those of us who don't believe in AGW it's nothing more than a wealth redistributing scandal.

[Endus]

Average global temperature increase does not cause the sea level to rise. That's a fact. We've tracked rises and falls in temperature with no correlation to sea level. So you wonder, how it is possible with more ice melted that the sea doesn't rise? It's because as the temp rises and melts ice, the warmer air causes more water to evaporate. There's more water in the air, and in turn more rain fall. The warmer it gets, the smaller the deserts around the world get. The warmer it gets the less arid zones we get. The warmer it gets, the greener the planet gets.

This is how the planet balances.

Why the hell would anyone lie about this stuff?

Sea levels are measurably higher. http://ocean.si.edu/sea-level-rise

ANY attempt to look at the actual numbers would have told you you're wrong.

Computer climate models have been wrong for as long as they've been made. It's most likely due to the fact that most the people putting those models out have an agenda. The climate this year is nothing like what the fear mongering from 15 years ago would have us believe.

This, again, is absolutely false.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...an-you-thought

For the love of puppies, stop believing the counterfactual propaganda being fed to you by conspiracy nuts. Because that has to be where you're getting this nonsense.

Which none can agree what those impacts will be. According to some alarmists we should all be under 5m of seawater by now.

Again, straight-up wrong. I usually link the WG1 report for the physical science stuff, but here's the WG2 report on impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability; http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

And that is just an awful analogy, but pretty symbolic of how alarmists argue the case and demonise co2. We are not talking about urine, we are talking about carbon, one of the important building blocks of life. Without it we die.

The same is true for water. Your argument is like claiming it's impossible for people to drown, because we need water.

It's nonsensical.

The extra taxes and costs I incur to reduce co2 is purely symbolic. For those who believe in AGW it's a pretty raw deal, for those of us who don't believe in AGW it's nothing more than a wealth redistributing scandal.

Nobody "believes" in AGW. It's not a hypothesis. We understand the facts, which are that AGW is occurring.

Denying this is no different than denying that the Earth is a globe, or denying that humans landed on the Moon. It's exactly the same degree of lunacy and willful ignorance.

[Gray_Matter]

Right wing organization says documents from left wing folks are all fake. Left wing organization says Right Wing organizations faked the fakings.

I'm totally surprised and shocked by all the things...for real.

In the linked article they quote the authors of the documents who clearly state that their reports don't say what Brietbart is claiming. For example:

The blog post maliciously tampered with figures from my paper, removing lines from the figures. My paper is just not relevant to the arguments about global warming.

and

First of all, it is important to state that the Guillet et al. paper, published in 2017 in Nature Geoscience, never claimed nor concluded that human-induced global warming was a “myth”. The paper merely aimed at reassessing the climatic impacts of the 1257 Samalas eruption on Northern Hemisphere climate using historical archives and tree-ring records. In other words, this study was not designed to answer the question of whether or not the recent warming is historically unprecedented.

In the second case, it's studying the effects of a volcano eruption in 1257 and has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I'm all for renewable energy and a cleaner environment. I drive an electric car and would be very happy if I never had to drive an explosion-mobile again. IMO, they're archaic and burning fossil fuels is dumb to say the least. I can't stand dirty cities, and due to that live out in the country. I love the woods, green plants, and clean air.

My question is why did you write this?

And then this

I'm just saying, lets be honest about our motivations. Lets get real about what we can achieve without crippling our economy and technological advancement

Where in any of what you have stated do you leap to this conclusion especially after all you have claimed, about motivations, concerning the data that indeed shows models for the fact you are wrong?

[Deleted]

I believe the best way to convey a particular stance on a topic as a consumer is to make conscious decisions on how & where you spend your money, if you keep buying plastics, electricity and drivimg cars that all require fossil fuels, you are a part of the same problem you espouse you stand against.

I don't know how it is in the US but in Sweden you are more than capable of having a house with negative carbon emission, infact I install and regulate systems like that all the time.

And as an addendum, this is beside the phony, stupid paris agreement

[Rafoel]

What the hell is this wall of text? Anybody actually read all of it, including the OP, considering his "TLDR" has actually nothing to do with the content of his quote?

[Deleted]

@Endus I don't know why you torture yourself taking on these people in these climate threads, to be fair im impressed they can work a computer.

[Mormolyce]

I take it you haven't been watching CNN in the past 5 years.....

If you think CNN is on the level of Breitbart then you're probably on the level of Breitbart.

[Mormolyce]

Yeah, totally. The right wing people are all evil with evil intentions, but the left wing people are all holy with righteous intentions...for real.

Again, these are scientists at universities. Not Buzzfeed or something.

[Orbitus]

Your lack of wit suggests otherwise....

- - - Updated - - -



Do you even CNN, bro?

Just because you believe Breitbart's bullshit, doesn't mean that CNN is anywhere near what Breitbart is. There is a reason that no one listens to them on this site and everywhere outside of /pol/ and r_TheDonald.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Alt-right news outlets use lies in order to push their agenda? Color me shocked!

People taking Breitbart seriously, are not worth taking seriously. They're the kind of people that would deny cold hard facts if said facts don't match their political agenda.

[Machismo]

So Brietbart = fake news but any other left wing liberal news organisation = gospel.

Got it.

Wow, deflect much?

[Deleted]

Why is it allowed to gain credibility by saying things like "according to 5 scientists" and "we asked x scientists and they said no"?
This is like saying "according to 5 politicians (that we shall not name and we totally didn't handpick), gun control is a bad thing, therefore this is an absolute fact".

[Jademist]

So Brietbart = fake news but any other left wing liberal news organisation = gospel.

Got it.

Breitbart did put fake news by misrepresenting climate science publications...the scientists themselves point out why Breitbart's analysis of their work was false.

[unbound]

People really, really need to stop reading Breitbart for any reason other than to get a laugh.

[Jademist]

Why is it allowed to gain credibility by saying things like "according to 5 scientists" and "we asked x scientists and they said no"?
This is like saying "according to 5 politicians (that we shall not name and we totally didn't handpick), gun control is a bad thing, therefore this is an absolute fact".

The issue is the way the media is presenting science itself.

[Magical Mudcrab]

Who would have thought that a news site that's known for lacking integrity lacks integrity when reporting on science, ensuring what they present conforms with their preconceived ideas.

Yeah they aren't the white supremacist, Alt-Right, Trump, Lex Jones and Fox this what they do.

Leave it to good ole' Mall Security to jump into a thread, immediately declaring people he disagrees with as white supremacists