TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Blogger proves Nasa wrong on climate change

10 点作者 jcwentz将近 18 年前

3 条评论

phil将近 18 年前
Before you draw any conclusions from this story, you should really have a look at Jim Hansen's explanation of the error and figures here: <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_LightUpstairs_70810.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_LightUpstairs_70810.pdf</a><p>Their errors have basically no effect on global temp anomalies.
mynameishere将近 18 年前
Remember the 2 + 2 = 5 bit in the book "1984"? That was in reference to the Soviet claims that they met all the production goals for their 5 year plan in 4 years. The slogan was something like, "We achieved 5 in 4".<p>The production figures were all fraudulent, of course. The industrial figures weren't just wrong, but hid the fact that Russian argicultural had been set back 40 years--not to recover until the 1980s.<p>Back then, "Prosperity" was the ticket. And "Prosperity" meant smokestacks. What's the best way of making more smokestacks? Everyone has a pre-packaged solution to every problem, of course, which is phrased in various ways but amounts to:<p><i>We</i> control <i>you</i>.<p>IE, control of the means of production. That's the solution--and since it precedes the problem, and since it doesn't actually solve any problems anyway, it has to search around pretty hard looking for a reason. Back then, the crisis was "Not enough smokestacks". In later years?<p>Umm. Poverty? Inequality? Pollution? Global cooling? Global Warming? ... The solution to "Global Warming" is of course "We need fewer smokestacks". Since people aren't likely to shut their smokestacks off willingly, the REAL solution is,<p><i>We</i> control <i>you</i>.<p>...after seizing the means of production.
评论 #44246 未加载
评论 #44204 未加载
jfoutz将近 18 年前
Climate change is one of Rupert Murdoch's pet projects. The motivation for this article is nothing more than a positive performance review for David Byers. <p>Consider the first line "America's top scientists have admitted that the calculations ... were flawed" It's phrased as though the scientists were activly hiding the truth, pushing some secret agenda, rather than making a mistake. Line 2, "Climatologists ... have been forced to revise their estimations". what? at gunpoint?<p>Science is great because of objectivity. Any random guy can point out mistakes, and "Climatologists at Nasa's Goddard Institute of Space Science" will listen to him. The timesonline is nowhere near objective. Beware this article as a source, Its internal bias will mess with your ability to consider the quality of evidence.