I thought we were past that. I thought that it was now about questioning whether it was human caused, or the size of the impact.
Apparently we really are going back, and revisiting basic arithmetic.
A.1 It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.
The previous report (from 2013) only said (and much further in)
Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.
The equivalent statement from AR4 (2007) was
The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, ...
You could argue there is more of a question about what to do about it (e.g. try and mitigate climate change or just pay for the damanges). There is pretty good evidence at this point that mitigating the change through reducing CO2 emissions is a lot cheaper and comes with a host of other benefits (energy security, improved public health), but I can see wherer there might be arguments to have about this.
If they think mitigation is bad for the economy, why would the uncontrolled fallout be any better?
See how easily these people switch from "Nothing is happening" to "Oops it's too late to do anything."
It's entirely possible some of them are merely paying lip service and don't really believe that it will ever affect them personally. But taking them at their word they accept that they will be impacted one way or another.
I don't happen to agree with them but I still think it's worthwhile to understand other's reasoning. The dismissiveness that's all too common drives dogmatic behavior and polarization.
This is relatively recent progress. Go back a decade and people were straight-up denying that the climate was warming.
We are.
Before we had disagreements in the scientific community by respectable agents.
Now these are not a return to old debates, it's just that the current administration is abusing its authority to control information.
It's just a manifestation of the post truth.
This administration is abusing its authority to subvert instruments intended for specific uses in order to apply them to the trumpist agenda. The censorship of universities, sacking of govt agents that disagree with the administration, deportation of students, civilians being sent to El Salvador, the wrongful application of the Magnitsky law...
You don't need to take these threats at face value in order to stand agains them.
If you are sophisticated then they have quite elaborate, yet factually incorrect, justifications about not hurting the global poor etc. that they'll use.
But if they can get some traction with blaming the Jews for orchestrating an elaborate conspiracy or a Chinese hoax or just blatant denial of reality and recorded fact they'll keep doing that too.
Whatever works. They have the money and the political power to get away with it.
I thought we were past the question of whether the Earth was round or flat. Yet here we are.
Honest people are past that.
Are storms getting worse? No. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ace-north-atlantic-hurric...
Is drought getting worse? No. https://www.drought.gov/historical-information?dataset=1&sel...
For people who don't Fucking Love Science!™ and think climatologists are corrupted by profit, what's the killer argument that weather is getting more extreme.
The graph you link to does not support your claim.
Trend line has a slope of 0.2845587086 / year increase.
Noisy graph, correlation coefficient is 0.3003115118, but still, it does not support your claim.
> Is drought getting worse? No. https://www.drought.gov/historical-information?dataset=1&sel...
Correct. This shows decreased droughts and increased flooding. Do you expect increased droughts from increased global temperatures? If so, why? Most of the world's surface is water, more heat means more water in the air.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/understanding-...
"The UK State of the Climate report states that there are no compelling trends in storminess when considering maximum gust speeds over the last four decades. More comprehensive studies across the North Atlantic region have reached similar conclusions."
If you're going to try and argue that "no trend" isn't the same as "no compelling trend".... please, just don't. Life is short.
You've mis-interpreted the second graph. It doesn't show any increased flooding. It shows a very minor and unimportant trend in wetness. The trend is unimportant because increases in wetness don't imply increases in flooding, as the relationship is non-linear. Flooding has not increased so although I didn't mention flooding I could have added it to the list. See "Floods and Heavy Precipitation at the Global Scale: 100-Year Analysis and 180-Year Reconstruction" in JGR Atmospheres, Renard et al.
No, it is not.
More precisely: it is not justified by the evidence you chose to provide.
> A trend line calculated for any natural dataset will never be exactly zero. This doesn't mean humans need to speak in scientific notation as if we are robots. You are well aware of that, so please stop playing silly word games that don't advance the discussion. The phrase "No trend" is a perfectly reasonable way to describe storm data, which is why governments say the same thing:
You cannot say the opposite of what words mean, expect to not get called out on this (especially on a place like Hacker News), then when you are called out expect to get a positive reaction to saying "boo, stop playing word games".
The average for the first 50 years is 79.24 units. The average for the most recent 50 years is 106.64.
So, between the values of the first and last 50 years. So it backs my point and still denies yours.
This time, do you want to cherry-pick a specific date range that actually fits the results you expect from your apparently pre-existing belief there's no trend, or are you going to accept that line go up?
Save you some time, here's the rolling averages with 10, 20, and 50 year horizons: https://pasteboard.co/rQ49kvY8YeBU.png
Average is forward from any given date on the chart and standard spreadsheet use of "average" function, which is why (if you look closely) you'll see the right side is spiky and they all line up perfectly when that's clearly silly.
You can obviously compute a trend line on this data set, as with any. That doesn't mean the trend matters or can be described in normal English as "storms getting worse", which is why even people like the British government who are fully on board with Net Zero don't try the argument you're trying here. They explicitly say the trend line isn't compelling, even.
So what point are you trying to make, exactly? That they're wrong and it is compelling? Or that on HN there's a rule against describing data in normal ways?
Let's boil this down to the only thing that matters: do you think people should be alarmed by this data? If so, why, when others who have studied it don't?
This belief system is highly attractive to the nerdy types who hang out here, because it explicitly privileges the nerdy and proclaims them the new priesthood, whilst draping itself in clothes designed to look like science and maths whilst refusing to hold itself to rigorous standards.
So we get BEHOLD ALL YE UNBELIEVERS type rhetoric, and then people with graphs that say "nothing to see here" get booed but not responded to.
Conserving the environment and taking steps to reduce our impact on the planet is a good thing. To that end, I’m ok with believing in global warming. I believe some of the narrative is used for selfish ends (green energy companies are looking to make a profit, too) and abused, but on the whole it’s a noble cause.
The replies here that are more or less “wow, can you believe these people don’t trust the word of the priests?” are extremely tiring. “Science” in this division is little different from belief. None of us (experts included) have the data nor intellect to holistically evaluate a system as complex as our planet. Our current understanding is likely wrong in some way.
There are plenty of good reasons to preserve the planet. We don’t have to resort to heretic burning and tribal shaming. It’s short sighted and intellectually lazy.
Actively rejecting the work of scientists based solely on ideology, that is religion, in the worst sense of the word. They're not heretics. They're just liars.
Rejecting or accepting based on ideology is wrong. And given we lack the technical ability to fully understand global warming, there is no objective truth here.
I think all the stuff in the above sentence is objectively true and observable.
No. Scientist seek to understand and change their beliefs as the facts become clear - the scientific method. Science is self correcting. Some people attack science for self-correcting, but that's literally the point of science.
Priests OTOH do not look to self-correct. Religion is built on myths, and without those myths it will no longer exist. The only ones relying on myths are those still denying climate change.
• We know the effects of CO2 on the transmission of electromagnetic radiation and how this varies by frequency. Same for the other gases in the atmosphere.
• We know how much energy is coming into the system from solar radiation, which we also know accounts for almost all incoming energy. We know the frequency distribution of this energy.
• We can measure the outgoing energy, and see that there is an imbalance with incoming higher than outgoing.
• We can measure incoming and outgoing at the surface, and at various levels in the atmosphere, to track down where that net energy increase is ending up. Infrared is in the frequency range that CO2 blocks.
• We can measure incoming and outgoing energy at various levels in the atmosphere and measure temperature and see that blocking the outgoing infrared heats the atmosphere.
• We can see that this heating effect is a function of CO2 concentration, which he can observe is going up over time, and we can see that the amount of heating increase over time closely matches the amount of heating we would expect from the increasing CO2.
The above just takes lab work (e.g., characterizing how various gases affect radiation transmission), measurements of incoming and outgoing energy flow, spectrum, and temperature of the system as a whole (satellites can do this) and at the surface and at various layers of the atmosphere.
That shows that warming is occurring, and it is almost all due to increasing greenhouse gases.
That doesn't show that humans are responsible for this increasing gases. For that we have:
• Carbon comes in different isotopes. There is an isotope with a half-life of about 5700 years that is created in the upper atmosphere from cosmic rays and then spreads throughout the atmosphere. The other two isotopes common in the atmosphere are stable. By looking at the ratios of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2 we can determine that the large increases in atmospheric CO2 come from sources that have little or none of the radioactive carbon.
Living things and dead things that have not been dead for a very long time do have significant amounts of the radioactive isotope because living (this is the basis for carbon dating). That lets us rule out things like wildfires as a significant contribution to the increases CO2.
The major ways to get excess stable carbon isotopes in the atmosphere are volcanoes and digging up and burning fossil fuels. We know that most of the increase comes from fossil fuels rather than volcanoes or other geological activity because:
• We know how much fossil fuels are burned each year and so can calculate how much carbon that will release into the atmosphere and that accounts for almost all of the observed excess stable carbon.
• We can monitor volcanic activity and see that it is not high enough to be a major contributor. Maybe we've missed a lot of volcanoes or other geological sources, but if we have we know that they can't be omitting much because the ones we do know about plus the amount from our known fossil fuel use accounts for almost all of the observed excess.
I'm sorry, what?
We have total understanding of global warming: 1) CO2 traps heat, we know that from basic lab experiments, and 2) we're pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, which we know from countless data points, both historical and contemporary.
When it comes to the basic fact of global warming, that's all you need to know.
Everything after that is forecasting impacts and associated trend lines.
however when you start to identify with a group, you start to reject anything that doesn't reinforce your existing stance and group think. this is a really human trait and goes back to humans needing to be able to feel things like guilt and shame and desiring things like acceptance and validation, because these traits were what allowed us to live as groups and in small societies, when being in these groups vs ostracized was the difference between life and death.
mansplaining aside, i agree. i do wish there was more honest and interesting discourse around many topics, rather than things devolving into "everything this sexual predator says is fake and wrong". which isn't to defend them, but rather to share the exhaustion that discussion that isnt focused around science and data and instead is mostly talking points from our overlords.
The US is just choosing to make a huge mistake and not participate in growth markets like clean energy, etc.
Fossil fuels losing economic viability is a small light at the end of the tunnel. But even that may not help if politic is making bad enough laws.
Coal plants may still be getting installed, but relatively(!) little coal gets burned in them, because PV is just so much cheaper these days.
EV transition is also a big deal there. For all that the American (and European) car industry complains about dumping, the Chinese just buy those same EVs without any of the tariffs adding to the prices.
Practical issues remain with emissions due to metal refining, but those seem tractable, and solutions are already getting deployed outside research labs.
Still, big unsolved issues remain with emissions from concrete (IIRC the work there is currently lab research), and the scale of change needed is ~"everything everywhere except *grassland*" or ~"everything everywhere except North Korea".
so many quotes in this thread (and thanks for the 90/00 playlist for the day)
Not really: this false equivalence between Democrats and GOP (especially their recent incarnation) is absolutely delusional. Contrast Obama, Trump 1.0, Biden, Trump 2.0 (so far). Like really?
> [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3dvbM6Pias
With a few decades worth of hind sight, does anyone actually think that Gore would have handled 9/11 (leading into Afghanistan and Iraq) the same was as Bush (and Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz)? Even at the time (I'm a GenXer) it was strange thinking.
You may be more interested in reading the lyrics than watching the video, the song is not about "equivalence between Democrats and GOP".
It's about the powerful who control the media and how the media is used to control the narrative. (some much worse than others) It's not only about <media bad>, but also how the American people (already with an insatiable searching for satisfaction in movies, glamour and tabloids) have become slaves to it [all media/types]; glaringly obvious today vs the 2000s as media heads have gained cult status in parts, to the point of earning government appointments only this cohort would be able to appoint and not get laughed out of office.
Those who control the narrative controls the present, who controls the past -- controls the future. To bring it full circle, fitting in that rewritting reports is controlling the narrative; similar to firing a messenger of statistics
I fully agree with you, it was strange thinking; and if we're drawing parallels -- interesting how real election scandals led to GOP presidents. [scotus/hanging chads & Mueller report]
Oh, and the "delivers it best" part is biased as I like Rage; they deliver the line better than reading it imo
(It’s mostly a sad statement now about US ceding a huge growth area for its industrial base here.)
Our energy and automobile companies will suffer longer term by being able to hold onto old, not economically viable ways of doing things until the bitter end.
Perhaps they should write "wide", "100%" or "unquestionable" concensus. I feel not using proper adjectives is undermining this consensus!
Malignant/Malicious/Malevolent yes -- absolutely; not evil -- not yet.
What we don't hear being shouted from the same people are the parts being reverted; for example, they say they can't and won't bring back people they illegally deported to a 3rd county prison. Yet people are being brought back; things are working/making their way through the system.
Thats the line. We still have a system and it is working as intended. Evil is getting rid of the system, complete shattering so that the institutions of our republic cease to exist -- not by cohesion [I meant coercion but cohesion/falling in line too] or party politics/domination, but complete cessation. Where there are no non-violent options to course correct by the people. We still have that. For now.
This is not the first time this country has gone through these types of challenges. It is the first in which so many people are aware of it and being used to fuel it and fuel fear at such a large scale (a method of control). They (current people causing the commotion) want the people who do not support them to be so angry and emotionally exhausted that they will stop resisting administrations efforts. As a lover of history [edit to help the unhinged llm bot that has blessed my comment: love of reading history], I still believe in this country and that we will get through it together. Like we have many, many times before.
*It's like a caricature of a teenager that harms small animals. Not all of them turn into serial killers, sometimes that's all it is. Right now they are the teenagers harming small animals phase.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Criti...
It is really just a collection of 'skeptic' arguments form the last 20 years or so. Science magazie had an article about it
https://www.science.org/content/article/contrarian-climate-a...
A coordinated response is being prepared by climate researchers debunking the whole thing, but the news story has already passed so I don’t know whether it will matter.
“U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays.”
When asked about the Indian Removal Act, President Andrew Jackson stated that if he had not taken the action, the native peoples would have been wiped out. Effectively he was saving them from genocide.
"According to historian H. W. Brands, Jackson sincerely believed that his population transfer was a "wise and humane policy" that would save the Native Americans from "utter annihilation". Jackson portrayed the removal as a paternalistic act of mercy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/15/nx-s1-5298683/jd-vance-afd-ge...
1. There has always been town-destroying wildfires every summer. It's always been like that.
2. It has always been the case that AC units were necessary for a human to survive an american summer. I mean, look at native americans, they always had AC units!
3. Los Angeles always flash flooded 10 feet up across every summer.
4. America has always been at war with Canada.
5. Wildfire smoke across the sky for the whole damn summer? Always been thus. What do you mean, blue?
The Trump administration is basically following Kodak's strategy from the early 00s.
--
[1] https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-investment-2025/exe...
[2] https://www.eco-business.com/news/iea-renewables-will-be-wor...
Eastman Kodak (the spun-off film business) in the 2020s has been more or less stable. They even brought a discontinued film (E100) back. Production and pricing are now in line with the limited demand from film studios and hobbyists.
Oh, wait.
But, as good as that opportunity is, I'm afraid the 3 years this administration has left wouldn't be enough to fully disassemble the US advantage. :)
Charles Coughlin and before him the Know Nothings did the same. Anti-intellectual illiberalism is a fundamental strain of US political belief.
Feynman
In this case, nature will not just not be fooled, it will extract retribution, unfortunately also on those that weren't fooled in the first place.
All this nonsense you see going on is ultimately a result of cognitive biased thinking, especially confirmation bias. The fact that we differ so deeply from these biases was not our decision, it was thrust upon us by nature and it helped us survive in an environment very different from the one we found ourselves in now.
It says something when we act against that.
That said, nothing about this has been inevitable. So many accidents along the way. There are many other results that have been possible. Our social/political setting may be related with technology but it's wholly unclear how deterministic each step has been.
So what are the broad strokes of humanity that could have reasonably been foreseen? A trend towards greater societal social complexity, increased resource consumption, increased energy use, economic efficiency, and wealth concentration.
I mean, Trump is so blatantly destroying american influence that it would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. When you think about the alternative, that is, a "regular" american elite saying that climate action is important with their regular hypocrisy, pretending to be doing anything at all, but in fact going the other way, then things don't look so bad in the medium term. Sure, a bit of short term pain, but otherwise, might end up being better off.
I mean, try to put yourself in the shoes of one of those oligarchs a few years ago and ask yourself how you'd actually solve the climate problem, given current cultures around the world. Maybe you'd come up with the "let's prop up Trump".
That being said, it's just a pet theory. I actually have doubts that such smart oligarchs exist.
With a little help from foreign friends, of course.
Carbon emissions can only be reduced by engineering and manufacturing advances
Carbon emissions can first and foremost be reduced by reducing the combustion of fossil fuels.
Everything else is just bookkeeping and icing on the cake.
Exactly! It can’t be reduced or increased by edits to federal PDF files that nobody reads
Commercial efforts are the only solution, and will happen because new energy is cheaper and better. Photovoltaic and battery improvements are our best path forward. Industrial policy can help but we’ve never really had that in the US
China is so far ahead of the world in green energy it's ridiculous. We can't pretend that it's still 1995 and China still gets most of its energy from coal anymore.
China 91.9 exajoules
India 22 exajoules
United States 8.2 exajoules
Japan 4.54 exajoules
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/coal-cons...
Their green energy line _is_ on the increase, but it's effectively flat compared to the growth lines on coal and oil.
It makes a difference but basically doesn't change the big picture.
It is not a crises of nature, it is a crises of habitat for us as species, and a bunch of other like us.
From another angle, it's taken a really long time for evolution to get to this point, what can be experienced from the myriad life forms is quite wide and widening, it would be a shame to return to only the level of a microbe.
Must we take everything else down with us?
-- George Carlin
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
- human health, pollution
- preservation of natural resources useful for humans
- preservation of biodiversity, nature in its original state
- concern for animal suffering
- aesthetic concern for human habitat
These things typically overlap, but sometimes they even contradict.
Honestly I think this stuff goes very under-reported. The world has become so used to anti-intellectualism that simple ignorance in the highest office(s) is now excusable, and criticising it is implicitly cast as political. Which is a state of affairs that can be weaponised.
(Lest people think I am sniping at the USA from the UK, I'd observe that we as a nation were bounced into a monumental decision by a series of politicians who flatly refused to make their numbers add up when challenged)
It's not under-reported generally, it's that a large portion of the population only watches certain news channels that do not report what's going on. That's why the Epstein case is such a big issue for Trump, because it's been pushed so hard by the news his supporters watch. They don't care about the blatant corruption on a scale never seen because they don't know about it. But Epstein is a foundational MAGA conspiracy.
What I mean is, there is no really deep reporting on what it means in terms of long-form journalism.
And I mean this internationally and apolitically. There is very little serious discussion about what scientific, technological and economic illiteracy means when it is found in positions of power, and why it is that the new orthodoxy is simply to resist correction.
We have these discussions (belatedly) about judges and lawyers, especially in the light of the Post Office scandal in the UK (and in relation to the Lucy Letby trial, where there appears to have been a simple, astonishing agreement between the prosecution and the defence to not use statistics).
But we do not talk enough about how leaders on all sides are content to keep pushing the same uncorrected points, again and again, and it's not disqualifying. Politicians can simply choose not to "recognise" the correction, to use the parliamentary term, and that is sort of where it stops.
I do think the Epstein story is interesting because it is one of those things where perhaps the base understands that someone in office has lied to them, regardless, because the story directly contradicts itself now.
But I think it's survivable. If he doesn't complete this term it won't be the reason given, at any rate; his very obvious cognitive and physical decline will be.
"Based on current trends, probably close to zero new cases in US too by end of April"
Many things make me think Elon Musk uniquely benefits from Gell-Mann amnesia but the idea that anyone should have listened to him about anything other than rockets or cars should have been jettisoned right then and there. Because what he was saying was unsupportable by evidence right at the moment he said it.
Instead, here we are.
Clearly his money employs a lot of smart people, some of whom are not actively doing evil.
I understand how it happens, but I'd hope people understood that Trump's USA is not the world. Just like people in general know not to extrapolate what Putin's administration is doing in Russia, they need to be able to do the same for the USA. At the moment, in my opinion, both administrations are lost causes, and you can just choose to follow, support and advocate many other positive signals around the world.
A lot of people in countries that are making positive steps are losing hope unnecessarily because of this.
The U.S. is 25% of the world economy and declining.
Growing economies are ripe for growing with more climate friendly policies, not just because of the environmental impact (both from an AGW and local environmental perspective) but because of energy security and sovereignty perspectives, but also to reduce dependence on the petro-dollar.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/china#what-sources...
https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/india#what-sources...
China is decreasing the percentage of fossil fuels in its total mix over the last 15 years (while still growing total energy generation).
India... less so.
China at least seems to have come to the conclusion that (a) they need to continue to expand total electrical production for economic reasons, (b) decreasing dependence on external fossil fuel producing countries is preferred, (c) there are cost advantages to generation from renewables, and (d) there's geopolitical mileage with other countries to be seen as ecologically forward.
Even in the US the vast majority of new power generation is clean energy. EVs and Hybrids are about 20% of new car sales and climbing. Even if there’s a short term road bump with oBBB, battery innovation and costs continue to drive cost down.
The US economy will suffer by not trying to compete in these markets, and will need to depend on other economies more and more.
One is in a box and can't really reach anything else without nukes. The other has his nukes in everybody's backyard, and the entire world economy depends on the world order that has him at the top.
With rewritten histories and a fictional past
- "Master Race", New Model Army, 1986…US really is going all in on detaching from reality
One of the problems honest people have understanding habitual liars is that they think liars are always incentivised to try to keep their lies plausible within a world of shared truth -- that they will always ultimately be caught out.
Hence the idea that the coverup is always worse than the crime. Everyone thinks the domino run of implausible claims ends with the liar being caught out when one lie does not move things on for the liar.
But in systems of power, in fact, there comes a point where it doesn't really matter whether something you're saying is true, it just matters that you say enough things that people get caught up trying to make them make sense and are distracted from what you are doing.
The dominos just keep falling forever.
This isn't new at all: one of the most influential men in Russian politics, Vladislav Surkov, absolutely learned to weaponise theatrical untruth in this way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_Surkov
And there have long been fears that Surkov's techniques were infecting the West (through Hungary, Turkey etc.)
The problem is people simply don't want to believe, at any deep level, that these people lie for the sake of it, when in fact they clearly do. And they get caught up on the idea that since decent people think being caught lying is shameful, liars will always feel shame when caught out.
Once you understand that they do not, you can understand that any given lie may not be told to hide a specific misdeed; it may simply be told to add to the haze of untruth that allows the liar to go about their business.
— Confucius
lol
They need to be right about fraud in climate change research only once and the climate change research needs to be right %100 of the time and they need to have had communicated that correctly %100 of the time. They will have some worst case scenarios or oversimplifications and predictions that did not come to be true in obviously demonstrable way. It will be tough.
Regardless, this wouldn't mean much for EU, China, Japan and other fossil energy importing countries as with the Russian invasion of Ukraine this has become a matter of national security and not just some hippie ideal. It doesn't make sense anymore to drop clean and renewable energy even if the Trump administration proves that releasing smoke is the healthiest thing ever and helps with increasing the penis size.
So they are going to re-write history to fuel some ideology, as the fossils were to be extracted anyway.
EU is also somewhat pushing with more aggressive carbon pricing.
There's no ideology, you have it reversed, it's always about money.
The oil industry is a huge donor of funds and spend 8-10x more on lobbying conservative politicians. The ideology is tacked on top of the money to justify the donations, and for their voters to gobble it up and repeat the lines as if rolling coal would be an ode to freedom.
Because they don't edit the data to make a new objective truth that survives scrutiny, they edit the data to demonstrate their power over data.
People referring to the archived data will simply be denied access to the conversation moving forward; "our opponents keep fighting old battles when the world has moved on".
It works. And it will continue to work shockingly well even when the underlying phenomenon asserts itself in ways that are predicted by the archive data. Look at how Florida is torn between climate change denial and the actual reality of sea-level rises affecting the Keys.
"I'm invisible and you can't see me!"
Pair with the rewriting of Bureau of Labor Statistics data to fit his desired narrative / alternative reality: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/07/us/politics/trump-new-eco...
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
You can't make this shit up.
But the insurance companies are in the know. House insurance rates are raising a lot in many at risk states and areas. Just heard Texas joined that fun.
So seems capitalists involved with insurance and finance know the real facts.
Edited for LOLs...
Here in the real world, the number of professional journalists who would stick their necks out and risk losing access or a paycheck to "fight the powahhh" is exactly and precisely zero.
It is, however, a supremely self-righteous profession full of people who THINK they would...
As far as a liberal rebellion goes, they're too busy dividing themselves over foreign matters they have absolutely no chance of changing or even slightly influencing to even the tiniest degree to see that they are letting themselves be fucked. Russia and Iran spending a tiny amount of money and other peoples' lives was the best investment they ever made and the only smart one of the last decade.
I mean, if you raze the Amazon rainforest the honest thing is not to move the weather stations to the remaining bits that still self-regulate temperature.
If you wish to show that baseline temperature increases, you let more measuring stations in urban areas. If you intend to compare apples with apples, you must consider the kind of location where your measuring station is.
It's like bringing more and more Hobbits to Gondor, and then complaining that an average height of the Gondorian citizens decreased over time. But did the height of an ethnic Gondorian really decrease?
What is the basis of these revisions?
https://www.science.org/content/article/world-1-3%C2%B0c-or-...
Apparently the Japanese continued using wooden buckets longer than other navies, resulting in Pacific data being skewed.
What is discussed there is part of all data interpretation, the transfer functions between raw measures of <something> and the inferred values of <interest>.
eg: https://www.ga.gov.au/bigobj/GA13928.pdf as an example of stitching 40 years of survey data collected with a range of different instruments and procedures.
In the climate domain the same care is taken to preserve raw data from historic methods, the challenge is syncing data streams that have covariant features (such as matching years against tree patterns from differing logs from a variety of species), in this case logs from a variety of ways of sampling sea water temperature.
Glad you took my comment well, no offense was intended :)
Ideology
They can be reinterpreted, but we must never edit or delete the original records.
> Historical records, especially pre-record keeping are revised
Here "historical records" means "the best-known interpretation of historical evidence": it's not talking about modifying records made pre-record keeping. Of course we still have access to previous interpretations: people have gone to pains to ensure they're preserved (despite certain former stewards trying to erase them), and those people are building more resilient systems to avoid this happening again.