Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

Page By Category

Forum - New study predicts imment colapse.

any basis?

Tags: Economic Collapse, Collapse period, Collapse, climate change [ Add Tags ]

[ Return to Politics | Reply to Topic ]
SabertoothPosted: Jun 06, 2012 - 19:44
(0)
 

Level: 0
#1 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Wolf BirdPosted: Jun 07, 2012 - 06:12
(0)
 

I shoot you dead.

Level: 9
CS Original
What were the theories used?

What were the prediction models?

Lastly, how about a link to the actual study?

Without that, that piece reads like a press release and is meaningless, IMO.

Edit: I went and found the article on nature. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11018.html The abstract reads much less hysterically then that press release. I'm not paying $32 to read that one article, but I can't help but have a feeling that the press release exaggerated everything for attention.
#2 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Real RoxettePosted: Jun 07, 2012 - 06:59
(0)
 

There ARE more sluts in public schools. Shut up and let me explain.

Level: 8
CS Original
Am i the only one who thought it meant the planet was going to collapse in on itself? AFAIK ecology is largely a pseudo-science that makes largely quasi-religious predictions about nature and the environment. Nature is way unbalanced already, there isn't some harmonious balance in the web of life, not even close. I think we'll be fine.
#3 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
CyborgJesusPosted: Jun 07, 2012 - 08:51
(0)
 

Level: 6
CS Original
How is this stuff any different from what the club of rome has been writing for decades now?
#4 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Jun 07, 2012 - 09:55
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original
Garbage. Most likely entirely based on models, which are unreliable at best due to the complexities of the planet.

Anyways, you can't say that you're making a prediction on one hand, and then on the other say you're unsure what the prediction will be because the results are unpredictable.

If this was a serious study with real implications, it would be discussed by environmental scientists. Not MSNBC and tree hugger blogs.
#5 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
CyborgJesusPosted: Jun 07, 2012 - 11:52
(0)
 

Level: 6
CS Original
Who's talking about MSNBC? It's been published in Nature and the authors seem fairly scientific to me.

I'll see if I can pick up a copy tomorrow.
#6 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
SabertoothPosted: Jun 07, 2012 - 12:18
(0)
 

Level: 0
Great. Tell us what you found then. :)
#7 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Jun 07, 2012 - 12:28
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original
Quote from CyborgJesus

Who's talking about MSNBC? It's been published in Nature and the authors seem fairly scientific to me.

I'll see if I can pick up a copy tomorrow.


When an article that costs 32 dollars to read is being pimped by agenda driven media outlets and not the scientific community, I can probably wipe my ass with it. And I probably would wipe my ass with it, but toilet paper is only a dollar.
#8 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
CyborgJesusPosted: Jun 07, 2012 - 13:03
(0)
 

Level: 6
CS Original
What? It's been published yesterday and the distribution models of scientific journals have been insane for decades now.
#9 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
SabertoothPosted: Jun 07, 2012 - 13:54
(0)
 

Level: 0
Quote from CyborgJesus

What? It's been published yesterday and the distribution models of scientific journals have been insane for decades now.


Bad distribution methods?
#10 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
CyborgJesusPosted: Jun 07, 2012 - 14:51
(0)
 

Level: 6
CS Original
Well, you can get access to most scientific papers easily if you belong to a University or have cool National licenses, but the rest of the world pretty much gets pushed into the subscription model by discouraging the purchase of individual articles, reviews and papers as much as possible. Sure, there might be economic pressure behind it, but in cases like this one, it's putting another wall between science and public opinion.
#11 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
SabertoothPosted: Jun 07, 2012 - 15:05
(0)
 

Level: 0
Which is kinda sad if they want this to be more widely available.
#12 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Jun 07, 2012 - 16:48
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original
It's to put a wall between science and public opinion yet the authors of this study chose to appeal to public opinion through media outlets?

Fuck this hippie shit.
#13 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
SabertoothPosted: Jun 07, 2012 - 17:35
(0)
 

Level: 0
Come now, if we react that way, we are no better than them. That´s why I put this out here, I want to see how factual it is before dismissing it as crap.
#14 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Wolf BirdPosted: Jun 07, 2012 - 17:44
(0)
 

I shoot you dead.

Level: 9
CS Original
Well, without reading the actual study, it's difficult to determine that. And the press release definitely raises a few issues that make me skeptical of the legitimacy of it. I won't dismiss it completely without reading the article, but it raises mental red flags in my mind.
#15 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Jun 07, 2012 - 17:57
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original
That's the point. Due to Nature's subscription requirement I *can't* read the study despite trying to do so repeatedly today. All I found were endless environmentalist and left-leaning media outlets promoting it. Why are they promoting a study they haven't read? It's the same goddamn publicity rap in every article, but I'm supposed to believe the outlets promoting it have read it? Yeah, right.

So it's in Nature. BFD. Andrew Wakefield was in the Lancet.

I'm going to dismiss this hippie bullshit because I have absolutely no reason not to at this point. I put forth the effort to consider it before accepting or condemning it and I can't. Therefore at this point there is no reason to think this isn't yet another media science fail.

Don't you fucking dare sit there and say this is outright condemnation without consideration.

The premise is fucking retarded. The logic in the publicity campaign is shitty. Judgement has been made until evidence requires otherwise.
#16 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Evil ElvisPosted: Jun 08, 2012 - 02:26
(-1)
 

STFU!

Level: 1
CS Original
oh i find the logic sound, seriously - what is not to believe? that humans are to blame for CO2 and planet's demise? sure, let us put aside the fact that one volcano releases more CO2 than all vehicles and factories in that area and that the volcano was there for possibly hundreds of thousands of years. put it aside and believe 'scientists' who have been so successful in predicting ominous happenings this past two millenia.

and put aside that the planet has been around significantly longer than any human life form and it is doing just fine as it always was. other than that, what is not to believe :-)
#17 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
CyborgJesusPosted: Jun 08, 2012 - 04:45
(2)
 

Level: 6
CS Original
Got my hands on a copy. As I expected, it's just a primer on applying thresholds to global anthropogenic forcing. I wouldn't call it a study, it's just a review referencing lots of other studies that have made similar points. It's an interesting read for anybody who is curious about environmental science, but there aren't many original claims. The actual threshold used (50%) is pulled from the February 2012 issue of "Conservation Biology" and seems rather blurry to me (and indirectly includes the possibility that we've already crossed it).

Quote from Agent Matt

That's the point. Due to Nature's subscription requirement I *can't* read the study despite trying to do so repeatedly today. All I found were endless environmentalist and left-leaning media outlets promoting it. Why are they promoting a study they haven't read? It's the same goddamn publicity rap in every article, but I'm supposed to believe the outlets promoting it have read it? Yeah, right.


And so what? Some doofus promotes an article he hasn't read. The authors can't control that. Nature can't control that. All they can do is inform people that it's out and that you might want to read it. Considering that it's a review, you'll need access to scientific journals to confirm the dozens of references anyway.
#18 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Jun 08, 2012 - 08:08
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original
You are so naive CJ. How do you think the media got wind of it? How did almost every single article repeat the same rhetoric?
#19 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
CyborgJesusPosted: Jun 08, 2012 - 08:15
(0)
 

Level: 6
CS Original
I'm sure it's a vast Sorosian leftist conspiracy and not just a bunch of lazy bloggers/journalists copying each other.
#20 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Jun 08, 2012 - 10:32
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original
No derpster, it's because the hippies behind it knew that it was bogus science and instead hoped to use the media to promote their "study."
#21 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
CyborgJesusPosted: Jun 08, 2012 - 11:01
(1)
 

Level: 6
CS Original
That's bull. One, you haven't even checked the thing, so feel free to ignore it, but you don't get to claim it's bogus. Two, as you'd expect with Nature, the article is hedged pretty carefully. They admit the uncertainty and fuzziness of their claims and ask for more research, as any scientist should.
#22 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
SabertoothPosted: Jun 08, 2012 - 12:43
(0)
 

Level: 0
So in your words - scientists make credible, proof packed article, but the intention is not "DOOM!".

Other websites take as "DOOOOM!" WE ALL DOOMED!" mantra as opposed to it.
#23 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
CyborgJesusPosted: Jun 08, 2012 - 15:05
(1)
 

Level: 6
CS Original
Sort of. The media release you linked is pretty horrible (or at least its headline), but the paper made some interesting points. There have been lots of papers about positive feedback loops, i.e., you change something within a system and the system reacts by further amplifying the change. This is one of the major concerns behind climate change - we increase global temperatures and by doing that activate or amplify natural processes that act as reinforcing agents.

This one takes a slightly different idea, namely that there are certain points where normal balancing (or negative feedback) processes break down, so that even once you remove the pressure, you can't get the system back to the point where it started, a bit like the breaking point of a rubber band. The paper assumes that such an effect doesn't only apply to local regions but earth as a whole, and compares different papers that have discussed models of when this might happen. The numbers range from 25-70% (we're apparently at 43% now), which is pretty blurry, but it's still better than nothing and might be improved with better data.

It's a bit like a discussing health insurance for the world, with some guys being hypochondriacs, some guys believing they're immortal or god will fix it, and some guys refusing to make a decision until they know the exact chance of getting sick. It's pretty obvious that this decision isn't going to happen, whatever the risk may turn out to be, so unless you're interested in the science itself, just ignore it until there's more data. The Wired article makes a few good points: It could be an accurate warning, it could be a sexy but false hypothesis. The interesting question is how humanity should deal with this and similar problems: "Given incomplete but troubling information, what should people do?"
#24 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Jun 08, 2012 - 18:05
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original
Hippie bullshit.
#25 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
anticultistPosted: Jun 10, 2012 - 07:22
(1)
 

Brainwashing you for money

Level: 15
CS Original
So there is evidence that rapid change has occurred on the planet in the past, it's causation is pretty much unimportant in the context of my point I am going to make.

My point is this, if the evidence shows this has happened before why is it that people seem unwilling to grasp the likelihood it will happen again ?

The causation is not the issue in my eyes, rather that it can and will happen again whether people want to believe it or not, even if the studies are inaccurate and vague. The study doesn't affect the eventual outcome, the outcome is neither dependent on our discussions, studies or belief in the matter.

To deny that the Earth will eventually have some major climate upheaval is an unusual stance to take, and our interference and actions may well speed the process up. I find it laughable that even in this day and age people can deny something so blatant as climate change and it's eventual effects on the planet.


I don't like to put time frames on future events like these studies do, that part to me is the bullshit area, but I am fairly certain that future events will occur when the circumstances allow it.
#26 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]