Climate change - Thailand’s fucked

[frequent]

No more SGT in just a few short (well, 30) years - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/29/climate/coastal-cities-underwater.html

Vietnam too

Yes folks I’m still in Houston reading our great US of A newspapers so I can let you all know about the future of a country I’ve never visited (and now possibly never will) and expecting latintopxxx to complain this post has nothing to do with gay Thailand

[gerefan2]

I’ll bite...
From the piece about Thailand...” Even as global warming floods more places, it will also push poor farmers off the land to seek work in cities.

“It is a dire formula,” she said.”.

So more Gogo boys in BKK and PTA?

What’s dire about that?

[Nirish guy]

No more SGT in just a few short (well, 30) years -

30 years eh......so, no need for any of us to worry about it then thankfully - one plus point about getting older, not having to give a shit about such things anymore !

[Captain Swing]

I try to keep my natural skepticism under control when I read articles like this, because I know I often overdo the cynicism. Maybe these predictions are accurate--or maybe they're overly optimistic and things will really be worse. And maybe they're bullshit. This"study" has been all over the news here in the US. Nobody bothers to question the source. It comes from "Climate Central, a science organization based in New Jersey and published in the journal Nature Communications." I checked them out online: Nature Communications is an "open access" journal. Anyone can publish an article in it by paying a fee. There's no scholarly review, no pretense of scientific credibility. Climate Central seems to have somewhat more substance. Its address is in Princeton (Just up the road from me.) It's in an office building across from the University, but in no way affiliated with it. That might just be a mail drop. It seems to be an advocacy group, devoted to alerting the world to the climate change crisis. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not the same as a "science organization." They claim impartiality, but their supposed "research paper" would not, I suspect, pass scientific scrutiny. And who is going to scrutinize it anyway--mainstream media won't, even my beloved New York Times. Having grabbed and run with the sensational headlines, they'll move on.
By 2050 when the 150,000,000 people are drowning I'll be long dead, so it's not my concern anyway. So I think I'll just go have a nice tall glass of bourbon, from the stock I laid in 20 years ago, when "scientific studies" were predicting that the impending Y2K inevitably meant the end of Western Civilization.

[arsenal]

"I don't care, I'll be dead."
My response to every tree hugger I come across.

[bkkguy]

I try to keep my natural skepticism under control when I read articles like this, because I know I often overdo the cynicism. Maybe these predictions are accurate--or maybe they're overly optimistic and things will really be worse. And maybe they're bullshit. This"study" has been all over the news here in the US. Nobody bothers to question the source. It comes from "Climate Central, a science organization based in New Jersey and published in the journal Nature Communications." I checked them out online: Nature Communications is an "open access" journal. Anyone can publish an article in it by paying a fee. There's no scholarly review, no pretense of scientific credibility.

the authors of the article may or may not be peddling bullshit but I don't know that the same can be said for you! I don't know where you "checked them out online" but Nature Communications is part of the highly respected Nature publishing group, it IS peer reviewed (see editorial policies (https://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal-policies/editorial-process)) and has a high level of scientific credibility and its articles have a high level of citation in other research papers (see journal metrics for Nature publications (https://www.nature.com/nature-research/about/journal-metrics)).

and while I admit even the most respected journals have in the past published papers later called into question (and indeed this paper is refining previously published estimates), and I am sure even the NYT has referenced such papers, I am not sure I would be as quick as you to accuse "my beloved New York Times" of having "grabbed and run with the sensational headlines" and moved on!

[goji]

30 years eh......so, no need for any of us to worry about it then thankfully - one plus point about getting older, not having to give a shit about such things anymore !
Isn't there an approximately 50% chance of you still being alive in 2050 ?


I have to say many of the youngsters, including the educated ones seem to be very careless & inefficient with their use of energy. So if that's how they behave, it's probably best that I don't worry about it either.

[latintopxxx]

did someone mention the NY times...is that the failing one...

[Captain Swing]

bkkguy:

My only source was their website. I certainly may have jumped to conclusions about their credibility, in which case I apologize. If you are familiar with them and vouch for them, I defer completely to your knowledge. I withdraw my complaint and am willing to deny under oath that I ever made it. (Sitting alone in my garret late at night, however, I will secretly and silently still harbor my suspicions). Let's have another drink--we're doomed anyway.

From their website:
Nature Communications is an open access journal that publishes high-quality research from all areas of the natural sciences. Papers published by the journal represent important advances of significance to specialists within each field.

Nature Communications is a fully open access journal. More on Creative Commons Attribution licenses and the benefits of publishing open access can be found in this section.

To allow immediate global open access to all articles, Nature Communications levies an article processing charge (APC). Current APCs and waiver information are available in this section.

[Nirish guy]

Isn't there an approximately 50% chance of you still being alive in 2050 ?.

I 100% hope so !

[Captain Swing]

did someone mention the NY times...is that the failing one...

Failing AND fake, don't forget.

[Nirish guy]

I wonder does he even realise that the more he slates the NYT's and the like that its just even more (free) PR he's giving them - I'm sure their Ad agency loves him for it too !

[bkkguy]

My only source was their website.

then you need to re-read the page you are quoting from, particularly that last sentence:


To allow immediate global open access to all articles, Nature Communications levies an article processing charge (APC).

open access relates to easy access to the published articles, hence the processing fee for article submission, making it easier for other researchers to read and build on published research, rather than the more common restricted and expensive access to published articles, with no charge for submitting papers for other publications

and see the links to the Nature and Nature Communications web sites I provided above for their peer review policies and their citation rates etc

it is hard enough to try to access the quality of information in the climate change debate without reputable journals being trashed as having "no pretense of scientific credibility" - though to be fair this seems to be just a miss-understanding of the open access concept rather than a facebook-esque troll fake news post!