Don't Go Being Politically Insane You Climate Change Skeptics

[Skywalkre]

First saw this months ago but at the time I recall hearing they didn't have a chance.

Quote

Young environmental activists prevail in first-of-its-kind climate change trial in Montana

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Young environmental activists scored what experts described as a ground-breaking legal victory Monday when a Montana judge said state agencies were violating their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment by allowing fossil fuel development.

The ruling in this first-of-its- kind trial in the U.S. adds to a small number of legal decisions around the world that have established a government duty to protect citizens from climate change.

https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-youth-montana-trial-c7fdc1d8759f55f60346b31c73397db0

Hearing more about it, though, it may not be as groundbreaking as some news sites make it out to be.  The MT constitution makes mention that everyone in the state is entitled to a clean and healthful environment.  The first paragraph here seems to be a bit off because it's not that any fossil fuel development is illegal (they have plenty ongoing as is) but apparently the Rs in MTs government were stupid enough (they were either ignoring or didn't know their own constitution) to pass legislation that specifically prohibited studies to see how further development would impact the environment.  Sounds like if they don't win on appeal some simple changes can mostly get things back to where they were.

[Ivanhoe]

Just a reminder;

https://www.space.com/tonga-eruption-water-vapor-warm-earth

Quote

 

More than eight months after the underwater volcano near Tonga erupted on Jan. 14, scientists are still analyzing the impacts of the violent blast, and they're discovering that it could warm the planet.

Recently, researchers calculated that the eruption of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apa spewed a staggering 50 million tons (45 million metric tons) of water vapor into Earth's atmosphere, in addition to enormous quantities of ash and volcanic gases. This massive vapor injection increased the amount of moisture in the global stratosphere by about 5%, and could trigger a cycle of stratospheric cooling and surface heating — and these effects may persist for months to come, according to a new study.

 

 

[sunday]

That is unrelated to anthropogenic global warming, in case someone has doubts. Totally different mechanism.

Also, there has been shown that there are no correlation between forest fires, and/or hurricanes, and the supposedly, recent increased of average global temperature.

 

[Tim Sielbeck]

 

[Ivanhoe]

 

[Ivanhoe]

 

[rmgill]

Oh good, A List Celebrities can rub elbows with the Clintons again to talk about climate and other stuffs...

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/clinton-global-initiative-return-new-york-jose-andres-102417512

[NickM]

 I'm surprised the SoCal hurricane hadn't been mentioned .

Ah well...the Salton  Sea needs a refill

[sunday]

12 minutes ago, NickM said:

 I'm surprised the SoCal hurricane hadn't been mentioned .

Ah well...the Salton  Sea needs a refill

Did Imperial Valley flood?

[NickM]

27 minutes ago, sunday said:

Did Imperial Valley flood?

Did it? I don't even know. 

I heard Victorville to a pounding...

[sunday]

38 minutes ago, NickM said:

Did it? I don't even know. 

I heard Victorville to a pounding...

That should be far from the Salton Sea.

I became interested in that corner of the US after learning of the course changes of the Colorado River.

[NickM]

2 hours ago, sunday said:

That should be far from the Salton Sea.

I became interested in that corner of the US after learning of the course changes of the Colorado River.

Pity; if anyplace needed to be refilled, it'd be Salton. After all, Salton was caused by an accident, right? Good old David Attenborough said it was a dam collapse and the subsequent flooding the created the 'Sea'==It's not a 'natural' body of water.

[lucklucky]

In some scientific papers, words expressing uncertainty have decreased

A study of language in Science articles from 1997 through 2021 raises concerns about exaggerated claims.

 

Careful scientists know to acknowledge uncertainty in the findings and conclusions of their papers. But in one leading journal, the frequency of hedging words such as “might" and "probably" has fallen by about 40% over the past 2 decades, a study finds.

If this trend holds across the scientific literature, it suggests a worrisome rise of unreliable, exaggerated claims, some observers say. Hedging and avoiding overconfidence “are vital to communicating what one’s data can actually say and what it merely implies,” says Melissa Wheeler, a social psychologist at the Swinburne University of Technology who was not involved in the study. “If academic writing becomes more about the rhetoric … it will become more difficult for readers to decipher what is groundbreaking and truly novel.”

The new analysis, one of the largest of its kind, examined more than 2600 research articles published from 1997 to 2021 in Science, which the team chose because it publishes articles from multiple disciplines. (Science’s news team is independent from the editorial side.) The team searched the papers for about 50 terms such as “could,” “appear to,” “approximately,” and “seem.” The frequency of these hedging words dropped from 115.8 instances per 10,000 words in 1997 to 67.42 per 10,000 words in 2021.

(...)

https://www.science.org/content/article/some-scientific-papers-words-expressing-uncertainty-have-decreased

[Tim Sielbeck]

 

[Tim Sielbeck]

 

[Tim Sielbeck]

 

[lucklucky]

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/think-of-the-implications-of-publishing

Quote

 

I have been contacted by a whistleblower with a remarkable story of corruption of the academic peer-review process involving a paper published in 2022. The whistleblower has provided me with relevant emails, reviews and internal deliberations from which I recount this disturbing episode — which ends with an unwarranted and politically-motivated retraction of a paper that some climate scientists happened to disagree with.

The paper at the center of this story is not particularly significant, as it mainly reviews the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on trends in weather extremes. The paper does venture a bit too far (in my view) into commentary, but that is neither unique nor a basis for retracting a paper – if it were we’d have a lot of retractions!

To be clear, there is absolutely no allegation of research fraud or misconduct here, just simple disagreement.  Instead of countering arguments and evidence via the peer reviewed literature, activist scientists teamed up with activist journalists to pressure a publisher – Springer Nature, perhaps the world’s most important scientific publisher – to retract a paper. Sadly, the pressure campaign worked.  (...)

 

More also here

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/08/26/shock-retraction-of-climate-science-paper-showing-no-climate-emergency-draws-comparisons-with-climategate-scandal/

 

[sunday]

"the science is settled"

[Ivanhoe]

5 hours ago, sunday said:

"the money is settled"

FIFY

[sunday]

😁

But much more could be settled!

[Tim Sielbeck]

 

[Tim Sielbeck]

 

[Tim Sielbeck]

 

[Tim Sielbeck]

 

[Murph]