Comments

1
You are misusing the term skeptic here. What you mean is science deniers, not science skeptics. Good science is skeptical. Bad science is head in the sand.
2
Whatever happened to Slog's resident science nerd, Johnathan Golob? He was a credible voice.
3
Yay, no more Lord Moncton for the Commonwealth!

Boo, we're not in the Commonwealth, so more Lord Moncton for us.

But yay, Richard Mellon Scaife is dead, so less $ for denial organizations!

But boo, they have the Koch Brothers, Fox, the WSJ, the entire AM radio band, so they should be good.
4
This is very good news.

So much science news comes off like starting a traffic report with a debate about whether the roads exist.
5
Keep drinking the koolaid and dont ask any unpopular questions.

6
@5 -- Do you have something substantive to say?
7
Thank you @5. We'll keep "drinking the koolaid" of a massive amount of valid data gathered by scientists over decades. You can keep asking the "unpopular questions" of a lunatic fringe for whom ignorance + loud voices equal facts.
8
I will miss the sounds of BBC newscasters openly mocking these uneducated, scamming assholes but this is really for the best.
9
So is the Slog going to take any action to make their own science reporting better? New policies or practices perhaps?
10
@2, he was wonderful on science for us! LinkedIn reports for the last year he has been an "Infectious Disease Fellow" at UW. http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jonathan-gol…
11
@5: Did you mean the Flavor-Aid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_Aid#…
12
What took so long? We have known that climate denialists are a fig leaf for the merchants of doubt for over a decade now.
13
Good news, especially since the BBC led the charge on the coming global ice age in the 1970s. You know, "science".
14

Heavy rain floods southwest ABQ
Published: July 3, 2014, 12:30 pmUpdated: July 3, 2014, 2:58 pm

ALBUQUERQUE (KRQE) – Many homeowners in southwest Albuquerque are cleaning up Thursday morning.

Heavy rain overnight caused ditches to overflow, pushing water and mud across roads and into yards.

Homeowners started battling the rising water around midnight. It pushed mud through yards and in at least one case, into the crawlspace under a home.

A spokesperson with the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District says this is a case of a lot of rain falling quickly.


http://krqe.com/2014/07/03/heavy-rain-fl…
15
@14 shut the fuck up idiot
16
@13: You keep making this shit up.
A few studies in the 1970s predicted cooling iff aerosol emissions weren't curbed. The overwhelming majority of studies predicted warming trends. In the 1990s a BBC lecture erroneously said that in the 1970s cooling was the accepted opinion. This is about 5-degrees-removed bullshit on your part. Opinion discarded.
17
About time. It is ridiculous to report every time that some people deny climate change. That mistakenly leaves the impression that opinion is split roughly 50/50 about climate change, when in fact it is more like 97/3. It is fine to occasionally report on some moonbat climate denier, just for flavor, but most of the time there is no need to add their preposterous claims to real news.
18
http://wjh.harvard.edu/~jmitchel/writing…

What the fuck I don't even.
19
@6
yes I do: your moms vagina is really loose. I want my money back.
20
Where can I buy some carbon credits? and do you think they will take bitcoins as payment?

I dont want to be scammed or anything......
21
Obligatory inclusion of John Oliver's coverage of climate change "debate". (Link)
22
Can't question the Pope either.
23
> but we all could be a lot less histrionic and a lot more thoughtful in our coverage of scientific issues.

Including GMOs, right?
24
@23 as if there weren't a legitimate scientific case against monocrops drenched in herbicide.
25
@13, There has never, ever been a scientific consensus, or even a majority of climate scientists, that believed in global cooling, much less an ice age.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-…
Even in the 70's 60% of scientific papers were predicting warming. Only 10% predicted cooling.
Are you telling me that because a handful of mainstream media companies printed articles about cooling that you're going to follow them blindly for the next 40 years despite the fact that 97% of climate scientists are now positive that we are causing worldwide climate change? Get your head out of the sand fool.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1…
26
I wonder at what point they stopped inviting guests to question whether the Earth was round or when the last person was invited to talk about how the Sun revolves around the Earth.
27
@24 I said "GMOs," not "Monsanto." I know it's easy to conflate the two. Kinda like "weather" and "climate." The key is to listen to the scientific consensus regardless of one's world view. That can be very hard to do because we don't like having our positions and preconceptions challenged; then again, that's the whole *point* of science.
28
@5 - Does Paul fucking Constant? EVER?
29
@23: Agreed; GMO hysteria is one of the more aggravating problems with the political left in America. Plenty of people don't distinguish between "genetically-modified" and "transgenic", nor do they understand that SOME modifications are perfectly benign. Terminator genes, pesticide resistance, and insecticide production I'm against, and I do support mandatory labeling of transgenic organisms in food, but tweaking promoter sequences to make crops grow faster is nothing to sneeze at. Biotech is a powerful tool that can be used for good or evil purposes.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.