Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston Globe)   "U.S. polls indicate that most of the amateur climate change skeptics are Republicans." Sure -- people who think Ted Stevens is innocent will belive anything   (boston.com) divider line 688
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

3539 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Aug 2008 at 11:28 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



688 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-08-04 11:46:31 AM  
Manbearpig
 
2008-08-04 11:46:36 AM  
Every single denier in this thread has proven to be a lock-step neocon conservative in every other political thread they have participated in. Why should one be surprised at all? Jon Snow can go ahead and disprove the gibberish already spouted here, if he's not sick of trying to teach pigs to sing.

"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives" - John Stuart Mill
 
MFL
2008-08-04 11:46:41 AM  
techluver.com
 
2008-08-04 11:46:43 AM  
Hey, my tv says that global warming is real so it must be true.
Besides, its not like the lefty's pushing this theory (and handing out millions of dollars in "grants" to scientists who will agree with them) could have any ulterior motives. Suddenly climate change means they can legislate what kind of cars are produced, how much drilling can occur, what kind of lightbulb we can use and what our thermostat is set at. Oh yeah, and we must donate billions to 3rd world countries to help them adapt.

Just like everything else, follow the money folks, its not that complicated
 
2008-08-04 11:46:43 AM  
Tat'dGreaser: So Penn & Teller are Republicans now?

No, they're magicians.
 
2008-08-04 11:47:15 AM  
It blows my mind that people are CONVINCED of global warming based on a computer model.

Like this crap from today's news:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New estimates show that least 56,000 people become infected with the AIDS virus every year in the United States -- 40 percent more than previous calculations, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Saturday."


...what they don't trumpet in the headlines is that the figure is a wild ass (no bun intended) guestimate, based on a computer model, that only had data from 19 states. Everybody panic right?

So there will be a ton of new AIDS funding based on a computer model generated estimate that may or may reflect reality.

Faith in computer models is even more stupid than faith in an Invisible Man in the Sky or the Zombie Jebus but it's a sure-fire way to get funding ain't it?
 
2008-08-04 11:47:37 AM  
akugyaku: You could replace "amateur climate change skeptics" with anything having to do with stupid people and the statement would still hold true.

Not necessarily. Extreme left-wing groups can be just as stupid.

/lib.
//understands that neither side is perfect. Or free of morons.
 
2008-08-04 11:47:46 AM  
burndtdan: not here on fark! here, the skeptics are all independents.

Funny you should say that, I am a registered independent and one of the over 50% of the members of the APS that doesn't think that man made CO2 is a significant forcing factor in climate change.

That being said, there are a number of very good reasons for us to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, so I'm an advocate of alternative sources and fission.
 
2008-08-04 11:48:01 AM  
One argumaent against global climate change made by the denialists is that the only reason the vast majority of world scientists are part of this global conspiracy is to get more money in funding. It is based on the greed of the scientists.

I find it ironic that the main opposition to do anything about global climate change is due to it will cost them too much money. The long-term survival of the human race takes a back seat to short term profits.
 
2008-08-04 11:48:02 AM  
Did anybody RTFA?

It was a poll; it failed to even mention who conducted it, and who it was directed at.
 
2008-08-04 11:48:13 AM  
The main problem I have is the presumption that climate was ever steady in the first place. The earth's climate has always been ever changing. May as well complain about rain today when it was dry yesterday.

We change and adapt like we've always done. I don't see the reasoning behind trying to implement sweeping changes to alter a natural phenomenon. Nothing has or has been predicted to happen that hasn't happened before in earth's climate history. Just as your ancestors did, when a place becomes inhospitable farking move.
 
2008-08-04 11:48:42 AM  
tyrajam: Suddenly climate change means they can legislate what kind of cars are produced, how much drilling can occur, what kind of lightbulb we can use and what our thermostat is set at. Oh yeah, and we must donate billions to 3rd world countries to help them adapt.

So...you had to change your lightbulbs? when was that law passed- I must have missed it!
 
2008-08-04 11:49:24 AM  
I'm a Republican and I believe Ted Stevens is as crooked as a dog's hind leg. Global warming? It's getting warmer, but it's not entirely the fault of the humans on this planet.
 
2008-08-04 11:49:27 AM  
JDAT: Is it wrong to be skeptical of something not yet proven? Or should we embrace it as the truth right away? What would a D-umbass do?

This is kind of like Pascal's Wager... To simplify things, there are two distinct possibilities: Man-made climate change exists or not. We have two options, act on the possibility or not.

If man made climate change exists, the two possibilities are we sustain the climate to the best of our ability with the regulations imposed, or catastrophic disasters if we do nothing,

If man made climate change does not exist, the two options are act, and help the environment anyways. Or we could not act and the climate sustains itself.

You want to argue man made climate change has yet to be proven, so the options are act now with the worst affect is the environment sustaining itself but the best is it getting better OR do nothing with the best chance is the environment sustains itself, but the worst is catastrophic results.
 
2008-08-04 11:49:33 AM  
OompusMacGillicuddy: I remember this from the 70's.

Global cooling, global warming, global whatever.

From these replies, you'd think that science was republican.

/Democrats only recently secured full ownership of stupid.


Actually, you just THINK you remember this from the 70's, where the cooling was found in the same classy magazines with straight-faced belief in the Bermuda Triangle. The scientific literature of the time was worried about global WARMING.

One bad thin about the internets: stupid ideas and theories stay around a long time, and there's no good way to get rid of it. I gotta go, Bill Gates is sending me money whenever I forward an email.
 
2008-08-04 11:49:41 AM  
CruJones: I myself am not sure if it's man-made. I admit it's changing, but the climate tends to do that. What is it, 3% of all carbon emissions on earth are man-made?

Do you think the carbon was just invented by man? Invented out of nothing? Is there more carbon on the planet now than 20,000 years ago?
 
2008-08-04 11:49:44 AM  
Brockway: According to NOAA data, the temperature trend for this entire century is for cooling, not warming:

You just got your ass handed to you in another thread by this.

Please answer these two simple questions:

By "In this century" do you mean "for the past eight years"?

In the past hundred years, according to the NOAA data you're referencing to prove your point now, has there been warming or cooling?
 
2008-08-04 11:49:54 AM  
Does this mean that all amateur climate change believers, like the movement's leader Al Gore, are Democrats?
 
2008-08-04 11:51:02 AM  
I don't believe in climate change, but there's some swell technology that will eventually disprove that climate change is happening and instead have stopped like recycling, more efficient cars, or non-polluting energy.
 
2008-08-04 11:51:17 AM  
Arrr
 
2008-08-04 11:51:18 AM  
what_now: tyrajam: Suddenly climate change means they can legislate what kind of cars are produced, how much drilling can occur, what kind of lightbulb we can use and what our thermostat is set at. Oh yeah, and we must donate billions to 3rd world countries to help them adapt.

So...you had to change your lightbulbs? when was that law passed- I must have missed it!


I'm calling the cops.

The libs finally broke the back of the all-powerful incandescent light bulb lobby, and you WILL comply.
 
2008-08-04 11:51:47 AM  
MasterThief
The Earth warms, the Earth cools, and it will continue to do so just as it has for millions upon millions of years. This planet is utterly indifferent to us.

The temperature change in the last few hundred years is of a degree that usually takes thousands of years. We're witnessing geological time, you think?
Also, remember CFCs? They punched a frickin' hole in the Ozone Layer, and now that they're banned, the hole is shrinking (slowly and slightly; it'll take a few hundred years to heal, but it's not growing, which proves that CFCs caused it). Humanity already has shown its capacity to do massive damage to the atmosphere, and you claim it is invulnerable?? You are sticking your head in the sand and hoping the problem goes away so you don't have to deal with it!
 
2008-08-04 11:51:48 AM  
RanDomino: SR_NightBane
but there is alot of Exxon-Mobil funded data out there that indicates man-made CO2 is a small partof the climate shift.


Right, try to make the guy that petitioned his apartment complex to put in solar panelling seem like a shill for big oil, niiiice.
 
2008-08-04 11:52:25 AM  
If man-made global climate change is true, the biggest reason for this is western medicine.
 
2008-08-04 11:52:26 AM  
ghare Every single denier in this thread has proven to be a lock-step neocon conservative...

Instead of childish name calling, you work for the candidate who supports your position:

"...has castigated the Bush administration for wasting eight years in inaction on climate change, and the policies he says he would implement as president include early and deep cuts in US greenhouse-gas emissions.

By the way, they're talking about John McCain.
 
2008-08-04 11:53:39 AM  
My question is, what is the normal cooling and heating process for the earth. I mean it can't stay the same temperature can it? Rhetorical question it can't :). Except that I actually want to know what the Earth's normal deviation of temperature is for a period of say 1,000 years, 5,000 years, and 10,000 years respectively. That would REALLY help a lot of us man made global warming skeptics cross over to the "dark side".
 
2008-08-04 11:54:43 AM  
Brockway: First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed

What disruption of the global climate?

According to NOAA data, the temperature trend for this entire century is for cooling, not warming:


You got slapped around in the other thread for your horribly disingenuous - no, utterly stupid - use of that graph. Why do you persist in your stupidity?

Tat'dGreaser: So Penn & Teller are Republicans now?

Worse. They're Libertarians, to whom the very idea of a negative externality is a strange and foreign idea. At least Republicans can sort of grasp the idea.

OompusMacGillicuddy: I remember this from the 70's.

Global cooling, global warming, global whatever.

From these replies, you'd think that science was republican.

/Democrats only recently secured full ownership of stupid.


*facepalm* The only "global cooling" in the 1970s was a scattering of magazine articles. The scientific press was looking at global warming. This has been pointed out to you and the rest of your idiot friends dozens - no, hundreds of times - here on Fark, with full citations and everything. Why the fark won't you get it? Did you get dropped as a baby?

Seriously. If an entire farking scientific discipline gets behind something, don't presume to know more than they do.
 
MFL
2008-08-04 11:54:51 AM  
img.photobucket.com

images.wikia.com
 
2008-08-04 11:55:10 AM  
SHUT UP JUST SHUT UP!

besides, doesn't the co2 go out the hole in the ozone layer?
 
2008-08-04 11:55:44 AM  
Skeptics -

What have you got to lose? If the people you've dubbed as dupes for believing that man plays a role in climate change have their way, there will be a lot of changes, but they are all positive wehter you agree with their climater change conclusions or not.

So we build a bunch of solar stations, wind farms, and more fuel efficient cars. We tax people who are polluting more than their share. We find solutions to minimize our impact on the planet.

As a result we are less dependent on foreign oil and our air and water is less polluted (or do you not believe in pollution?)

So what's the problem here? If they are right, we may have a chance to reduce the amount of carbon in our air and perhaps get this thing under control. And if you are right, our country is still cleaner and healthier as a result of these actions, and green energy can successfully weaned us off of foreign oil and could potentially re-energize our economy.

No matter which side of the fense you are on, it all seems win-win to me.
 
2008-08-04 11:55:56 AM  
Magorn: Which last completely misses the point. I doesn't matter WHY the earth is getting hotter, the simple fact is that it is, and if something isn't done about it, a signifcant part of the world's costine will be submerged by rising sea levels

Go look at a good map and see what proportion of the World population and how many of the world's major cities are located along a coastline.


Well, it kind of does matter. If it is getting warmer because the solar system is approarching the center of mass of a spiral arm in the galaxy, then asking me for 4 trillion dollars to stop the warming won't really do anything but take my money, now does it?
 
2008-08-04 11:55:56 AM  
GLOBAL WARMING

img356.imageshack.us

This weekend I listened as some asshat "progressive" talk show host was asked if he thought the sun had anything to do with temperature on earth. He said, "Well, if you can send me some data on that I'll be happy to take a look at it."

I mean...
 
2008-08-04 11:56:12 AM  
a href="http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3780134&IDComment=43072 806#c43072806" target="_blank">Obdicut: By "In this century" do you mean "for the past eight years"? In the past hundred years, according to the NOAA data you're referencing to prove your point now, has there been warming or cooling?

From the data he provided, I think it's apparent that there's been quite a bit of both.
 
2008-08-04 11:57:22 AM  
JDAT: Is it wrong to be skeptical of something not yet proven? Or should we embrace it as the truth right away? What would a D-umbass do?

Just because you don't understand the proof doesn't mean it's wrong. And no, you don't get to let talk radio be your encyclopedia.

And what would Dems do? Probably not yell "gah! cyclical!!!" without having passed high school calculus enough to actually analyze those cycles.
 
2008-08-04 11:57:33 AM  
Came in here for the skeptics sputtering, "Bu...bu...but AL GORE!!! MANBEARPIG!!!"

Did not leave disappointed.

i287.photobucket.com
 
2008-08-04 11:57:56 AM  
What I find amusing about the Global Warming debate is those who tend to deny its occurrence, or rather our impact on it, ignore the obvious and easily demonstrable impact we have on our local environments. Forget convincing most of you what we are doing to the climate, I want most of those people to realize what we're doing to the air in our cities.
 
2008-08-04 11:58:06 AM  
Nutsac_Jim: If it is getting warmer because the solar system is approarching the center of mass of a spiral arm in the galaxy

WTF??? That is a level idiocy not normally seen outside Upper Class Twit competition.
 
2008-08-04 11:58:49 AM  
I'll believe that humans can change the climate when the poster child for "global warming" gives up his mansions and planes and actually lives as he preaches. And no, I am not a Republican OR Democrat, thank you very much.
 
2008-08-04 11:58:52 AM  
I've never belived in any of this BS. I do Believe in it though. What is belive anyway?
 
2008-08-04 11:59:07 AM  
Here is the thing I don't understand.

Lets pretend for a second that humans have NOTHING at all to do with it. Lets just grant that assumption, and we will say that global warming is 100% entirely due to natural causes.

The fact would STILL remain that the consequences of such warming have the potential to be catastrophic. Humanity might have the opportunity to help stop, or at least slow this problem that it potentially very dangerous. I think that it warrants effort and cooperation on facing the problem whether it is human caused or not.

I don't understand the argument that "Well, humans didn't do it, lets just ignore the problem." Quite frankly, that logic just doesn't fly.
 
2008-08-04 11:59:35 AM  
global warming
increases in severe weather
severe climate change
disruption of global climate

Some completely nebulous term that is untestable, therefore not disproveable.

Keep moving those goalposts, guys. You'll get them back to where the ball is soon enough.
 
2008-08-04 12:00:03 PM  
Joe_Mamma: I've never belived in any of this BS. I do Believe in it though. What is belive anyway?

An antonym for "bedead".
 
2008-08-04 12:01:22 PM  
Brockway: According to NOAA data, the temperature trend for this entire century is for cooling, not warming:

All 8 years of it?

Dumbass.
 
2008-08-04 12:01:39 PM  
Obdicut 2008-08-04 11:49:44 AM

In the past hundred years, according to the NOAA data you're referencing to prove your point now, has there been warming or cooling?


I never argued the earth has NEVER warmed. I am just pointing out that according to the NOAA data, none of that warming was this (the 21st) century.
 
2008-08-04 12:01:39 PM  
Frosted Flake: Funny you should say that, I am a registered independent and one of the over 50% of the members of the APS that doesn't think that man made CO2 is a significant forcing factor in climate change.

Yeah. Right. Sure you are. (new window)
 
2008-08-04 12:01:41 PM  
Carsa: I'll believe that humans can change the climate when the poster child for "global warming" gives up his mansions and planes and actually lives as he preaches. And no, I am not a Republican OR Democrat, thank you very much.

Wow. So you base your objective scientific decisions on the lifestyles of politicians?

Are you sure you're not a Republican?
 
2008-08-04 12:01:59 PM  
What a lame article. The entire thing is just a bunch of lies and cheap shots at anyone who doesn't agree with his views.
 
2008-08-04 12:02:23 PM  
That is an ad populus argument


Just because most republicans believe in global warming being caused by man is a lie, doesnt hel either sides case on its validity.


The truth is is that out of all the CO2 put out every year, humans atribute to 3 percent of that.

Sun cycles.... baby, sun cycles.

Stop fear mongering your LONG TERM Y2K

also, im a republican who thinks this whole global warming thing is huey and exists for new industries, but i do believe in clean air.
 
2008-08-04 12:06:14 PM  
Ok "the end is near" Farkers, put up or shut up. Stop wasting electricity by being on Fark. Lead by example, live the life that you want the government to force us to live and we should certainly see a difference, then I will join you. There is enough of you in the world right? People that care and all, we (Republicans) or Independent TM as you call us are only but a small minority on this planet, if we are the only things stopping you from correcting the world's climate crisis then something is wrong with you.

Maybe more Republicans wouldn't be so skeptical if your solutions to global warming didn't sound so much like the same old socialistic crap that you always spout off about.
 
2008-08-04 12:07:27 PM  
JDAT: Is it wrong to be skeptical of something not yet proven? Or should we embrace it as the truth right away? What would a D-umbass do?

CHRISDMID: I guess we would say "better safe than sorry, since we kinda like the world in its current hospitable state." I thought that "knee-jerk reactions to defend against a tiny-but-scary possibility at a murky point in the future, and staunchly defending those reactions to the bitter end" would be something the R-etards could get behind.

Well, except for the fact that the planet COOLING will cost us Trillions of dollars more than the planet warming, and the fact that a warmer planet will allow more food production and provide more habitable terrain... A warmer planet would actually be GOOD for us.
 
Displayed 50 of 688 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report