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.

(Telegraph)   "2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved"   ( telegraph.co.uk) divider line
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

3174 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Dec 2008 at 6:50 AM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



305 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
2008-12-28 05:50:34 AM  
The author of that article has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. Protip: Learn the difference between "climate" and "weather".
 
2008-12-28 06:13:23 AM  
Well at is a shame
 
2008-12-28 06:15:52 AM  
Interestingly, he proved the unified theory of Hurr.
 
2008-12-28 06:30:01 AM  
Warning:

This is the first unique instance of an argument against what is accepted as common knowledge. This is NOT a repeat from any time in the last six months despite what you may think you have seen. Remain calm and extinguish any smoking materials.
 
2008-12-28 06:34:03 AM  
Ahh is this where all those fans of science decide to throw out the Scientific Method in favor of "consensus" to make themselves feel "special"?

Man, just look at everything that occurred to create the Dustbowl of the 30's and tell me that we can even start to predict and model this shait. Face it, Nature will change the climate far quicker and far most drastically than we will.

It's fine to want to be environmentally safe, you know, I'm all for green things and furry creatures; let's just put it in context and stop the breathless "OMG I'm Killing my MOTHER EARTH" ranting eh?
 
2008-12-28 06:37:35 AM  
Global Warming is just a bit too political of an issue to be able to conclusively prove or disprove much of anything involved with it.
 
2008-12-28 06:39:06 AM  

TheOmni: Global Warming Slavery is just a bit too political of an issue to be able to conclusively prove or disprove much of anything involved with it.

 
2008-12-28 06:40:34 AM  

CanisNoir: Ahh is this where all those fans of science decide to throw out the Scientific Method in favor of "consensus" to make themselves feel "special"?

Man, just look at everything that occurred to create the Dustbowl of the 30's and tell me that we can even start to predict and model this shait. Face it, Nature will change the climate far quicker and far most drastically than we will.

It's fine to want to be environmentally safe, you know, I'm all for green things and furry creatures; let's just put it in context and stop the breathless "OMG I'm Killing my MOTHER EARTH" ranting eh?


Actually, after watching this (^), I tend to think that climate change is far less of an issue that we'll have to deal with than is global resource depletion due to overpopulation, which is a subject that many have simply seemed to have forgotten. That could come to bear within the next few years.

Watch the whole lecture if you have time, it's quite frightening all around.
 
2008-12-28 06:48:58 AM  
I, for one, have known since 2004 that the real threat to society as we know it isn't the turrists, but is, in fact, MANBEARPIG.
 
2008-12-28 06:55:37 AM  
Global Warming Slavery Cheese Sandwich is just a bit too political of an issue to be able to conclusively prove or disprove much of anything involved with it.
 
2008-12-28 06:59:07 AM  

CanisNoir: Man, just look at everything that occurred to create the Dustbowl of the 30's and tell me that we can even start to predict and model this shait.


Um, the Dust Bowl was a man-made phenomenon, caused by erosion due to bad farming practices.

But please, don't let that stop your idiot wharrgarbl. It is entertaining.
 
2008-12-28 07:05:50 AM  

citizen905: CanisNoir: Man, just look at everything that occurred to create the Dustbowl of the 30's and tell me that we can even start to predict and model this shait.

Um, the Dust Bowl was a man-made phenomenon, caused by erosion due to bad farming practices.

But please, don't let that stop your idiot wharrgarbl. It is entertaining.


No, actually it was due to a warm water current drifting a few degree's to the west causing less rain to fall in the plains. Over farming only came into play because of the extended draught and unusual winds. Lack of a root system allowed the top soil to be blown around and erode too much.

But keep believing nature had nothing to do with it if you like.
 
2008-12-28 07:18:49 AM  
I'd rather take the chance that I'm wrong in believing the theories about global warming and wind up looking stupid, rather than being wrong about disbelieving the theories about global warming and winding up in a massive climatogical disaster.
 
2008-12-28 07:29:35 AM  

starsrift: I'd rather take the chance that I'm wrong in believing the theories about global warming and wind up looking stupid, rather than being wrong about disbelieving the theories about global warming and winding up in a massive climatogical disaster.


Yea but if you're wrong about believing the theories, you're not exactly "fixing the problem" or even "preparing for the real problem". You see, nobody is claiming that the Climate is a static thing, we just disagree on whether or not *we* are the cause and the be all end all of the problem. If we just focus on what *we* think *we* are doing wrong, we're not preparing for the day that nature proves the theories wrong and changes the climate in a way you didn't see coming or prepare for - you know, because driving electric cars made you believe you were safe.

Why don't we focus on being able to adapt to a rapidly changing climate instead of flagellating ourselves over the fact that we advanced technologically? I thought only nutjob monks whipped themselves into believing they were without sin.
 
2008-12-28 07:36:17 AM  
Hm, no snow outside and it is end of December, global warming proved!!!! Works both ways I guess, anecdotal evidence that is.
 
2008-12-28 07:40:50 AM  
CanisNoir: The only problem with your premise: at current, the only preparation we can make for dramatic climate change is to put our heads between our legs and kiss our asses goodbye. We simply don't have the technology level to cope with massive climactic shift, and we've got a population load well beyond what can be maintained in such an environment.

You may as well say, "Well, you wouldn't have to worry about the climate so much if you were living on Mars!"
 
2008-12-28 07:41:13 AM  
honestly, i'm more worried about the plastic dissolving in the ocean...
 
2008-12-28 07:46:27 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: CanisNoir: The only problem with your premise: at current, the only preparation we can make for dramatic climate change is to put our heads between our legs and kiss our asses goodbye. We simply don't have the technology level to cope with massive climactic shift, and we've got a population load well beyond what can be maintained in such an environment.

You may as well say, "Well, you wouldn't have to worry about the climate so much if you were living on Mars!"


But that's because we've been too busy telling auto companies that they need to make electric cars or GTFO instead of investing in research towards things that could aid us the event that climate does change rapidly. I'm all for more ecosphere events and such - please genetically enhance some corn crops - let's see if we can make a bandanna that will grow in Alaska.

If we set up giant turbines, can we alter underwater currents? You know, shait like that. I just think right now too many people are making too much money off of the "We kill the environment" movement that we're losing sight of the *real* science; which is the Climate changes, sometimes rapidly and it's a really farking complex system that involves damn near every aspect of life on this planet because ecosystems are all truly inter-connected in subtle ways.

That's all I'm sayin :)
 
2008-12-28 07:47:58 AM  
Increases in co2 (from fossil fuel usage) in the atmosphere cause heat to be trapped. Increases in particulate matter in the atmosphere (from fossil fuel usage) cause heat to be reflected away. Since the timeframe for the dissipation of the excess co2 is longer than the precipitation of the particulate matter, the only thing that can save us is more pollution.
 
2008-12-28 07:48:19 AM  
let's see if we can make a bandanna banana that will grow in Alaska.

FTFM

Stupid Blind spell checking.
 
2008-12-28 07:53:12 AM  

CanisNoir: But that's because we've been too busy telling auto companies that they need to make electric cars or GTFO instead of investing in research towards things that could aid us the event that climate does change rapidly. I'm all for more ecosphere events and such - please genetically enhance some corn crops - let's see if we can make a bandanna that will grow in Alaska.

If we set up giant turbines, can we alter underwater currents? You know, shait like that. I just think right now too many people are making too much money off of the "We kill the environment" movement that we're losing sight of the *real* science; which is the Climate changes, sometimes rapidly and it's a really farking complex system that involves damn near every aspect of life on this planet because ecosystems are all truly inter-connected in subtle ways.

That's all I'm sayin :)


Fair enough, but why not do both? Undertake activity to return human impact to pre-industrial levels and work on superscience toys to manipulate the climate as we see fit?
 
2008-12-28 07:54:46 AM  
CanisNoir

I somewhat agree with your point that we have made global warming too much of an issue, but I don't necessarily agree that we should abandon the social movements that have been made to combat pollution. For example, I think there are many reasons that an eco-friendly hybrid (I specify eco-friendly, as the batteries of the current ones are most certainly not) or an electric car is a good idea, primarily to wean ourselves from foreign oil and thus hopefully reduce our involvement in pitiful little civil wars in the Middle East.

I believe, as you do, that natural climate change has had a lot to do with global warming and the Dust Bowl and the like, but it doesn't negate the fact that we could certainly have had a strong hand in it as well. The line is entirely too blurry to be able to strongly stand on one side or the other, so I'm going to favor eco-friendly progress over business as usual.
 
2008-12-28 08:01:03 AM  

CanisNoir: But keep believing nature had nothing to do with it if you like.


Oh, I see, you're saying that man's influence (loss of topsoil due to overfarming, natural grassy root systems replaced by dead crops) is enough to tip an already chaotic nature into catastrophic conditions.

As man has dominion over nature, we must use our God-given powers wisely. That includes limiting our CO2 output.
 
2008-12-28 08:03:58 AM  

citizen905: CanisNoir: But keep believing nature had nothing to do with it if you like.

Oh, I see, you're saying that man's influence (loss of topsoil due to overfarming, natural grassy root systems replaced by dead crops) is enough to tip an already chaotic nature into catastrophic conditions.

As man has dominion over nature, we must use our God-given powers wisely. That includes limiting our CO2 output.


No, what I'm saying is that Irrigation sure made this a non-issue and we still farm as much of the land if not more than before.

See, over farming wasn't the problem; lack of understanding the effects of that current shifting was.
 
2008-12-28 08:06:05 AM  

CanisNoir: No, what I'm saying is that Irrigation sure made this a non-issue and we still farm as much of the land if not more than before.

See, over farming wasn't the problem; lack of understanding the effects of that current shifting was.


*facepalm*

The weather changed due to the current, but the inability of the land to cope with the change was due to human behavior.
 
2008-12-28 08:07:28 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw:
Fair enough, but why not do both? Undertake activity to return human impact to pre-industrial levels and work on superscience toys to manipulate the climate as we see fit?


I'm not saying drop environmentally sound policies all together, I'm just saying have some context and prioritize. Having children scared to death that polar bears are dying, purposefully increasing the cost of energy to encourage less use and things like that are not the way to do both.

Right now we've got what I consider almost a religion surrounding this notion of Man Made Climate Change and it's causing our priorities to be skewed; because the climate will dramatically change even if we are at pre-industrial levels. Why cause undue suffering when what you claim you want to avoid is going to happen anyway?
 
2008-12-28 08:08:20 AM  
I can't believe you people.
When will you see LaRouche was right about everything all along?
He's been talking about colonizing Mars for years.
If he got elected back in 1988 we'd be arguing the merits of re-colonizing Earth by now.

This is the problem with being 20 years ahead of your time I guess.
I can't even begin to imagine the patience of that man, putting up with you people.
 
2008-12-28 08:11:47 AM  

CanisNoir: No, what I'm saying is that Irrigation sure made this a non-issue and we still farm as much of the land if not more than before.

See, over farming wasn't the problem; lack of understanding the effects of that current shifting was.


Oh, I get it now. Just as the technology of irrigation allowed us to control nature's chaos, so too will the technology of renewable energy allow us to stop using fossil fuels and prevent the runaway greenhouse effect.
 
2008-12-28 08:13:04 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: CanisNoir: No, what I'm saying is that Irrigation sure made this a non-issue and we still farm as much of the land if not more than before.

See, over farming wasn't the problem; lack of understanding the effects of that current shifting was.

*facepalm*

The weather changed due to the current, but the inability of the land to cope with the change was due to human behavior.


Your missing the point - it's almost a metaphor for problem solving.

Position 1: Dust Bowl was a form of Man Made Climate Change: Over Farming caused the Black Blizzards.
Solution: Fewer wheat farms so that the plains grass root system stays in tact and the drought will have minimal impact on the top soil.
--Unintended Consequences--
Fewer families own land, have jobs and the plains never get settled. The bread basket that will eventually feed most of the world never exists.

Position 2: Lack of understanding the effects of a shifting oceanic current is the problem.
Solution: Study the effects of shifting oceanic currents and understand that droughts can occur in the plains. Develope a solution that can deliver water to fields in the event of lower than expected rainfall.
---Unintended Consequences---
I can't really think of any.

This is what I'm talking about.
 
2008-12-28 08:16:32 AM  

citizen905: CanisNoir: No, what I'm saying is that Irrigation sure made this a non-issue and we still farm as much of the land if not more than before.

See, over farming wasn't the problem; lack of understanding the effects of that current shifting was.

Oh, I get it now. Just as the technology of irrigation allowed us to control nature's chaos, so too will the technology of renewable energy allow us to stop using fossil fuels and prevent the runaway greenhouse effect.


Irrigation wasn't something invented after the 30's - it's a technology that's been around a long while. I'm saying if we had focused on the real problem, money would have been spent preparing the fields for eventual droughts. We've become too focused on one thing and it's causing un-needed suffering.

That's my whole beef with Man Made Climate Change. When you stop acting like Nut Job Monks intent upon whipping yourselves bloody in hopes of feeling saintly, then I'll think we're on the same page.
 
2008-12-28 08:20:12 AM  

CanisNoir: We've become too focused on one thing and it's causing un-needed suffering.


What suffering? Seriously, I'm curious.
 
2008-12-28 08:21:07 AM  
I can go ahead and put the matter to rest for you all.

1. Factors beyond our control have an impact on the climate.
2. Factors within our control have an impact on the climate.
3. We could probably have a significant impact with a deliberate and well thought effort to change the climate to our liking.
4. #3 could backfire horribly, I suppose.
 
2008-12-28 08:25:55 AM  

CanisNoir: That's my whole beef with Man Made Climate Change. When you stop acting like Nut Job Monks intent upon whipping yourselves bloody in hopes of feeling saintly, then I'll think we're on the same page.


So you agree with the scientific consensus on climate change? Glad I was able to turn you around.
 
2008-12-28 08:26:23 AM  
What is more likely to happen is also mentioned in the article. The severe economic downturn will restrict what will be done in the name of "global warming" or "global climate change" (whichever you choose). In the interim, the trend in cooling will continue and the whole frenzy will slowly wither.

Regardless of the side you are on, two facts cannot disputed. 1. The economy will prevent most large-scale action, 2. There has been a cooling over the last two years.

/don't forget #3 - The climate is always in flux
 
2008-12-28 08:31:41 AM  
Munchausen's Proxy: Regardless of the side you are on, two facts cannot disputed. 1. The economy will prevent most large-scale action, 2. There has been a cooling over the last two years. century

FTFY

After all these defeats that liberalists suffered this year I don't see how anyone can call himself liberalist with straight face
 
2008-12-28 08:32:36 AM  

Doooom: CanisNoir: We've become too focused on one thing and it's causing un-needed suffering.

What suffering? Seriously, I'm curious.


Remember the four dollar a gallon gasoline and politicians claiming that it was a good thing? Or how about the rapid shift in public desire for hyper fuel efficient automobiles that far outpaced an industries natural ability to adapt?
Higher fuel costs, increased regulation... You name it.
 
2008-12-28 08:34:37 AM  

citizen905: CanisNoir: That's my whole beef with Man Made Climate Change. When you stop acting like Nut Job Monks intent upon whipping yourselves bloody in hopes of feeling saintly, then I'll think we're on the same page.

So you agree with the scientific consensus on climate change? Glad I was able to turn you around.


What you mean the theory that The Climate Changes and Always Will regardless of how Green we think we are? Yea, I've always believed that one.
 
2008-12-28 08:37:26 AM  
Link (new window)

Know your source

Booker's scientific claims, which include the false assertion that white asbestos (chrysotile) is "chemically identical to talcum powder" [2] were also analysed in detail by Richard Wilson in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008). (The chemical formula for talc is H2Mg3(SiO3)4 or Mg3Si4O10(OH)2, while the formula for chrysotile, the primary ingredient of white asbestos, is Mg3(Si2O5)(OH)4).

Wilson highlighted Christopher Booker's repeated endorsement of the alleged scientific expertise of John Bridle, who has claimed to be "the world's foremost authority on asbestos science", but who in 2005 was convicted under the UK's Trade Descriptions Act [3] of making false claims about his qualifications, and who the BBC has accused of basing his reputation on "lies about his credentials, unaccredited tests, and self aggrandisement".[4].

In 2006, the HSE published a further rebuttal[8] after Christopher Booker had claimed, again incorrectly, that the Health and Safety Laboratory had concluded that the white asbestos contained within "artex" textured coatings posed "no health risk". [9].

In May 2008, the Health and Safety Executive accused Booker of writing an article that was "substantially misleading"[10]. In the article[11], published by the Sunday Telegraph earlier that month, Booker had claimed, falsely, that a paper produced in 2000 by two HSE statisticians, Hodgson and Darnton[12], had 'concluded that the risk of contracting mesothelioma from white asbestos cement was "insignificant", while that of lung cancer was "zero"'.

In December 2008, an article by Booker was published in The Daily Telegraph, 'Facts melted by 'global warming''[13] and subsequently in The Australian, 'More inconvenient cold weather, snow and polar ice'.[14] The article claims that "Without explanation, a half million square kilometres of ice vanished overnight." That claim is false as an explanation was provided on 13 December and Booker's article was published on 21 December.[15].
 
2008-12-28 08:42:25 AM  
How many actual Climate Scientists in this thread? Or even just real scientists?

Show yourselves.
 
2008-12-28 08:45:39 AM  

2wolves: How many actual Climate Scientists in this thread?


I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
 
2008-12-28 08:46:14 AM  

2wolves: How many actual Climate Scientists in this thread? Or even just real scientists?

Show yourselves.


We're called "climatists", you half-literate toast-masher.
(climatologists is acceptable from Brits, those backward monkeymen)
 
2008-12-28 08:53:09 AM  

2wolves: How many actual Climate Scientists in this thread? Or even just real scientists?


It doesn't take advanced training in environmental sciences to realize that we're looking at something as huge as the earth, with more variables than all of the computers we have combined and attempting to make predictions. A daunting task at best, a fool's errand at worst.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be studied, it's just really really farking complicated, and people tend to oversimplify it.
 
2008-12-28 08:57:26 AM  

nekom: It doesn't take advanced training in environmental sciences to realize that we're looking at something as huge as the earth, with more variables than all of the computers we have combined and attempting to make predictions. A daunting task at best, a fool's errand at worst.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be studied, it's just really really farking complicated, and people tend to oversimplify it.


To summarize, nekom is not a climatist. But I am, and I say... aw crap I forgot to hold the auction.
Okay, climatist expert facts, bidding starts at $15.
 
2008-12-28 09:05:28 AM  
Where did Christopher Booker get his PhD in Climatology?
 
2008-12-28 09:05:46 AM  
No, man-made global warming was disproved years ago, but 2008 showed remarkable progress in educating the masses to this fact.
 
2008-12-28 09:09:42 AM  

randomjsa: No, man-made global warming was disproved years ago, but 2008 showed remarkable progress in educating the masses to this fact.


Disproved by what scientists? Can you give me a link to an article in a peer-reviewed journal? I'd like to read it, so I can stay up to date on the subject.
 
2008-12-28 09:16:43 AM  
attackingpencil: Disproved by what scientists? Can you give me a link to an article in a peer-reviewed journal? I'd like to read it, so I can stay up to date on the subject.

I must have missed the peer-reviewed articles proving it beyond a theory. The growing existence of those not afraid of opposing it is evidence of something. If it was a proven fact, opposition would wain to the point of only fringe heretics. It has been the opposite. After years of declining temperature averages, people are not so quick to shout down those questioning.

Hmph, people actually using their brains and not deeding that to Mssr, Gore et all. Imagine.
 
2008-12-28 09:19:46 AM  

Munchausen's Proxy: I must have missed the peer-reviewed articles proving it beyond a theory.


And with that sentence you've proved you don't understand science.

Munchausen's Proxy: he growing existence of those not afraid of opposing it is evidence of something. If it was a proven fact, opposition would wain to the point of only fringe heretics. It has been the opposite. After years of declining temperature averages, people are not so quick to shout down those questioning.


It's just that none of these people seem to be scientists, you know experts in the subject? The people who actually know what they're talking about. It's like with creationists "but a whole bunch of people have problems with evolution" of course none of these people know what they're talking about and anyone with a grasp of the subject accepts evolution. Seriously, show me some actual SCIENCE disproving global warming.

Munchausen's Proxy: Hmph, people actually using their brains and not deeding that to Mssr, Gore et all. Imagine.


Al Gore isn't a scientist. I'm choosing to believe people with PhDs. Do you know how hard it is to get a PhD?
 
2008-12-28 09:25:37 AM  

CanisNoir: Remember the four dollar a gallon gasoline and politicians claiming that it was a good thing? Or how about the rapid shift in public desire for hyper fuel efficient automobiles that far outpaced an industries natural ability to adapt?
Higher fuel costs, increased regulation... You name it.


The only time I have seen $4/gal gasoline is when there was a gas shortage. Then again, I live in Georgia. Gas is $1.43 now.

As far as the car companies go, I beg to differ with you. I think they've had more than enough time and resources to develop fuel-efficient vehicles but have chosen not to. As gas prices have risen the American car companies in particular have done next to nothing to improve gas efficiency. Gas prices did rise sharply for a little while, and the American car companies' gamble on cheap gas didn't pay off. Same thing happened in the 70s, which allowed the Japanese car market to gain a foothold in the US.
 
2008-12-28 09:26:21 AM  

attackingpencil: Do you know how hard it is to get a PhD?


That attitude will change when you start working with them.
 
2008-12-28 09:34:13 AM  

staplermofo: attackingpencil: Do you know how hard it is to get a PhD?

That attitude will change when you start working with them.

I mean there are 'idiots' with PhDs but it's a different quality/class of idiot than, say, some people in this thread. You still have to absorb an enormous amount of knowledge and display a pretty strong aptitude for critical thinking to get a PhD it's nothing that I would qualify as easy (at least not in my program (which makes me feel overwhelmed on a weekly basis), granted I'm not getting a science PhD).
 
2008-12-28 09:47:45 AM  

CanisNoir: No, actually it was due to a warm water current drifting a few degree's to the west causing less rain to fall in the plains.


Which current? I'm trying to figure out how this would work.
 
2008-12-28 09:57:39 AM  
CanisNoir: If we set up giant turbines, can we alter underwater currents?

Wait. So, mankind dumping millions and millions of tons of carbon (I would love to see a real estimate, for I think I'm being conservative) that had been sequestered for millions of years into the atmosphere cannot possibly be significantly affecting the global climate, however, mankind might be able to build giant turbines to try to push the ocean currents in a way to significantly affect them?

Can I have some of what you are smoking, so I can add a bit more carbon to the atmosphere?
 
2008-12-28 09:59:30 AM  
mamoru: CanisNoir: If we set up giant turbines, can we alter underwater currents?

Or was that question facetious?

/need moar coffee
 
2008-12-28 10:00:56 AM  

Doooom: What suffering? Seriously, I'm curious.


The price of corn has doubled. This has caused some unrest in Mexico recently.

Making it harder for people to eat isn't a good thing. It's pretty much the antithesis of progress.
 
2008-12-28 10:02:43 AM  
mamoru:

So, mankind dumping millions and millions of tons of carbon (I would love to see a real estimate, for I think I'm being conservative)

About 10 billion tons of carbon per year (here), if you count land use change/deforestation along with fossil fuels.
 
2008-12-28 10:11:42 AM  
jbuist:

The price of corn has doubled.

If you're referring to the impact of corn-based ethanol on food prices, that's not a result of people focusing too much on one thing (climate change). I heard economists (and some scientists too) warning about what it would do to food prices well before that actually happened.

People like to make it out as some example of well-meaning but poorly-thought out environmental policy. (Anything to make environmentalists look bad...) In reality, corn-based ethanol was already known to be a bad policy. The reason why it was put into place is not because people believed it would have no economic side effects. Rather, it was because it's an excuse to create a new subsidy to placate the agricultural lobby and buy votes for politicians in the Midwest.
 
2008-12-28 10:15:20 AM  

staplermofo: attackingpencil: Do you know how hard it is to get a PhD?

That attitude will change when you start working with them.


Yeah, those grapes are way too sour. You wouldn't want them anyway.
 
2008-12-28 10:15:50 AM  

jbuist: The price of corn has doubled. This has caused some unrest in Mexico recently.

Making it harder for people to eat isn't a good thing. It's pretty much the antithesis of progress.


Gas is now cheaper than ethanol, so the amount of ethanol in the gas you buy is shrinking drastically (at least in my area). (I have a few friends who drive gas trucks, and yes, they do know exactly how many gallons of each substance they're delivering). That should help it become less of a problem, hopefully.

However, I was referring more to fuel-efficient cars, not ethanol subsidies.
 
2008-12-28 10:25:00 AM  

CanisNoir: Remember the four dollar a gallon gasoline and politicians claiming that it was a good thing? Or how about the rapid shift in public desire for hyper fuel efficient automobiles that far outpaced an industries natural ability to adapt?
Higher fuel costs, increased regulation... You name it.


Just wondering why you think these responses are informed by a belief in anthropogenic climate change. I'm pretty sure that if refined oil released only butterflies and happiness when burned, we'd still be going to war over it and trying to rid ourselves of our need for it because it is a finite resource.

A nice side effect of the proposed alternatives is their lower emissions, but the real core of the 'suffering' you mention has nothing to do with the environment, otherwise you'd hear more demands from everyone that lithium ion technology not be used in, say, the Volt.
 
2008-12-28 10:38:51 AM  

gnobesav: CanisNoir: Remember the four dollar a gallon gasoline and politicians claiming that it was a good thing? Or how about the rapid shift in public desire for hyper fuel efficient automobiles that far outpaced an industries natural ability to adapt?
Higher fuel costs, increased regulation... You name it.

Just wondering why you think these responses are informed by a belief in anthropogenic climate change. I'm pretty sure that if refined oil released only butterflies and happiness when burned, we'd still be going to war over it and trying to rid ourselves of our need for it because it is a finite resource.

A nice side effect of the proposed alternatives is their lower emissions, but the real core of the 'suffering' you mention has nothing to do with the environment, otherwise you'd hear more demands from everyone that lithium ion technology not be used in, say, the Volt.


It's the pace I'm talking about. Yes we would still be going to war and researching replacements, but it would be at a much more relaxed pace, allowing people and industry to adapt over time. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that An Inconvenient Truth and the tidal wave it produced didn't contribute in a big way towards those shifts.

/There has been a near panic for the past couple of years that has only recently started subsiding; however when you have a presidential candidate who uses a phrase like "And the oceans will rise again" in one of his speeches, we've gone just a tad over board.
 
2008-12-28 10:41:15 AM  
The author was an idiot. The very fact it is colder is proof of warming.
 
2008-12-28 10:47:50 AM  
Munchausen's Proxy: 2. There has been a cooling over the last two years.

There have been many two-year-periods where average temperatures have gone down. Don't get your hopes up.

img230.imageshack.us
 
2008-12-28 10:54:31 AM  
The author, like most people who don't understand global warming, doesn't understand what a mean temperature is, in space or in time.
 
2008-12-28 11:01:42 AM  

CanisNoir: It's the pace I'm talking about. Yes we would still be going to war and researching replacements, but it would be at a much more relaxed pace, allowing people and industry to adapt over time. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that An Inconvenient Truth and the tidal wave it produced didn't contribute in a big way towards those shifts.


I'd wager the pace has a lot more to do with the Big Three's balance sheet. Detroit did not lose a lot of business because they failed to publicly embrace environmentalism and lost the Al Gore crowd. They did lose a lot of business when fuel prices shot up and people decided to stop buying their bread and butter, high-margin trucks.

It's strange to say we should allow industry to adapt over time after shelling out $15b to keep two out of the Big Three on life support for less than four months. The urgency is because that industry's best path back to profitability is to lead in fuel efficiency. The fact that this happens to be good from an environmentalist point of view is just a positive externality.
 
2008-12-28 11:06:51 AM  
Sigh...
 
2008-12-28 11:37:50 AM  
Read the comments over there. They make Fark forums look like the Godless Harvard Elite Liberal Science Club.
 
2008-12-28 11:43:54 AM  

make me some tea: Actually, after watching this (^), I tend to think that climate change is far less of an issue that we'll have to deal with than is global resource depletion due to overpopulation, which is a subject that many have simply seemed to have forgotten. That could come to bear within the next few years.


Ignoring the small fact that population growth is slowing and will start to contract within the next 50 years.
 
2008-12-28 11:46:53 AM  

attackingpencil: Al Gore isn't a scientist. I'm choosing to believe people with PhDs. Do you know how hard it is to get a PhD?


That's a joke right? I am not necessarily disagreeing with the rest of your argument but getting a PhD is not as hard as you seem to think it is. Also - highly educated people do on occasion get it wrong.

/believes in climate change
//have way too many friends with PhD's who seem to allow their political beliefs interfere with their research
 
2008-12-28 11:48:31 AM  

nekom: I can go ahead and put the matter to rest for you all.

1. Factors beyond our control have an impact on the climate.
2. Factors within our control have an impact on the climate.
3. We could probably have a significant impact with a deliberate and well thought effort to change the climate to our liking.
4. #3 could backfire horribly, I suppose.


That made my day.
 
2008-12-28 11:50:12 AM  
So CO2 is bad and methane even worse. Got it.

EVERYBODY: LESS EXHALING/LESS BEANS!
 
2008-12-28 11:56:45 AM  

bravian: attackingpencil: Al Gore isn't a scientist. I'm choosing to believe people with PhDs. Do you know how hard it is to get a PhD?

That's a joke right? I am not necessarily disagreeing with the rest of your argument but getting a PhD is not as hard as you seem to think it is. Also - highly educated people do on occasion get it wrong.

/believes in climate change
//have way too many friends with PhD's who seem to allow their political beliefs interfere with their research


Maybe I'm speaking from too much from personal experience (I'm a graduate student myself) but getting a PhD in my program is pretty damn difficult. First you need a masters degree from an elite institution. Then, you need to apply for the PhD, there are 18 spots and roughly 250 applicants. Once you're in you've got to take your quals in 3 years, 4 exams in 4 days (4 hours each to write 12-15 pages) with an oral exam on the 5th day. Get lower than a B and you're done, out of the program. Then you have to write your dissertation. Plus, you need to know AT LEAST 3 languages (usually more).

I know that being smart/educated doesn't automatically make your opinion true but I'd say that a person that's gone through the above, or something similar, has a far far better chance of being correct than a random newspaper columnist of guy on the internet.
 
2008-12-28 11:56:45 AM  
I could come up with some localized anecdotal evidence too!
For two days after Christmas here it was in the 60s. We had a genuine August-style thunderstorm. The two days before Christmas were a pretty constant downpour.

I live in Indiana. When we first moved here, the temperature never budged above freezing in December, in fact by New Year's we were often looking at lows around -20. If you're going by this year in this little corner of the world, anthropogenic global warming is alive and well.

And that's just precisely why you CAN'T. Local weather varies, overall trend is what's important. And that data's pretty hard to refute.
 
2008-12-28 11:59:04 AM  

CanisNoir: citizen905: CanisNoir: Man, just look at everything that occurred to create the Dustbowl of the 30's and tell me that we can even start to predict and model this shait.

Um, the Dust Bowl was a man-made phenomenon, caused by erosion due to bad farming practices.

But please, don't let that stop your idiot wharrgarbl. It is entertaining.

No, actually it was due to a warm water current drifting a few degree's to the west causing less rain to fall in the plains. Over farming only came into play because of the extended draught and unusual winds. Lack of a root system allowed the top soil to be blown around and erode too much.

But keep believing nature had nothing to do with it if you like.


You really need to get some education in equation modeling. Your statement says that farming is a variable and then it isn't. Once again, you prove that you are an idiot.
 
2008-12-28 12:01:56 PM  

bravian: make me some tea: Actually, after watching this (^), I tend to think that climate change is far less of an issue that we'll have to deal with than is global resource depletion due to overpopulation, which is a subject that many have simply seemed to have forgotten. That could come to bear within the next few years.

Ignoring the small fact that population growth is slowing and will start to contract within the next 50 years.


But our resource consumption is increasing, and the pace of increased may be slowing, but population is still increasing. There is a difference between the two.
 
2008-12-28 12:01:57 PM  
Regardless of your beliefs, explain to me this one thing without getting all smug: If ANY change in "normal" weather patterns (too hot = Global Warming, Too cold = Global Warming, Too much Rain = Global Warming, too little rain = Global Warming) is attributed to global warming, how in the hell can we actually quantitatively measure any effects we have/will have on this 'crisis'????

Seriously this is a catch 22, how can you ever prove that we are making progress if any change in climate is GW? Also who decides what is 'normal climate' seeing how it has been shifting for billions of years?

Thanks.
 
2008-12-28 12:06:47 PM  

moanerific: Seriously this is a catch 22, how can you ever prove that we are making progress if any change in climate is GW? Also who decides what is 'normal climate' seeing how it has been shifting for billions of years?


Uh, people who study climate changes for a living? The same way that people who study the planets for a living tell us what is normal planetary motion and the people who study bridge stress for a living tell us what the normal amount of stress on a bridge is.
 
2008-12-28 12:07:33 PM  

moanerific: Regardless of your beliefs, explain to me this one thing without getting all smug: If ANY change in "normal" weather patterns (too hot = Global Warming, Too cold = Global Warming, Too much Rain = Global Warming, too little rain = Global Warming) is attributed to global warming, how in the hell can we actually quantitatively measure any effects we have/will have on this 'crisis'????

Seriously this is a catch 22, how can you ever prove that we are making progress if any change in climate is GW? Also who decides what is 'normal climate' seeing how it has been shifting for billions of years?

Thanks.


We can't, at least not in the short term. We do know that CO2, methane, etc. increases the effects of this trend. Logically cutting back on their release into the atmosphere will allow the planet to return to the mean temperatures we should be seeing without our impact.

Of course, the whackadoodles will continue to rant and rave that this is a dangerous experiment with known outcomes, as opposed to the dangerous experiment of rampant industrialization and consumerism with very well known outcomes. They will say whatever their corporate masters want them to say, and the corporate media will continue to give them "equal time" even though they make up a small minority on the subject. This is why they are so afraid of the Fairness Doctrine.
 
2008-12-28 12:08:04 PM  

DemonEater: I could come up with some localized anecdotal evidence too!
For two days after Christmas here it was in the 60s. We had a genuine August-style thunderstorm. The two days before Christmas were a pretty constant downpour.

I live in Indiana. When we first moved here, the temperature never budged above freezing in December, in fact by New Year's we were often looking at lows around -20. If you're going by this year in this little corner of the world, anthropogenic global warming is alive and well.

And that's just precisely why you CAN'T. Local weather varies, overall trend is what's important. And that data's pretty hard to refute.


Yeah I love the anecdotal crap the "skeptics" bring up. I mean I'm in Iceland and it's 45(in american) outside and no snow to be found. But I'm not going to claim that this somehow "proves" global warming because that would be idiotic.
 
2008-12-28 12:09:49 PM  

LewDux: Munchausen's Proxy: Regardless of the side you are on, two facts cannot disputed. 1. The economy will prevent most large-scale action, 2. There has been a cooling over the last two years. century

FTFY

After all these defeats that liberalists suffered this year I don't see how anyone can call himself liberalist with straight face


Wow...find your meds.
 
2008-12-28 12:11:32 PM  

Doooom: CanisNoir: We've become too focused on one thing and it's causing un-needed suffering.

What suffering? Seriously, I'm curious.


CEO profits, by God man, haven't you been paying attention? Making these companies give a shiat will mean less exotic cars and fifth and sixth homes for those poor bastards!!11!!
 
2008-12-28 12:11:35 PM  
attackingpencil


fair enough, but don't you think those who lived in England when the climate was warm enough to grow grapes would argue that their own climate was more ideal? Or widespread farming in Greenland?

You side stepped my question entirely though, so if you have answer I would love to hear it.
 
2008-12-28 12:16:47 PM  

moanerific: attackingpencil


fair enough, but don't you think those who lived in England when the climate was warm enough to grow grapes would argue that their own climate was more ideal? Or widespread farming in Greenland?

You side stepped my question entirely though, so if you have answer I would love to hear it.


You asked:

moanerific: Also who decides what is 'normal climate' seeing how it has been shifting for billions of years?


I answered by saying climatologists. That's not sidestepping. Just because you're ignorant on a topic doesn't mean that everyone is.

Also, in your reply, YOU just changed the whole argument by talking about ideal climate rather than normal climate.
 
2008-12-28 12:18:54 PM  
This is why they stopped calling it global warming and now call it climate change. Even when the climate starts to cool and their computer models are proven inaccurate, they can still say the climate is changing.

Well, no shiat it's changing. It's been changing since before humans even existed and it will continue to change long after we're gone.

50 years from now we will see global warming alarmists in the same light as Indian rain dance chiefs and those who participated in the Salem witch hunts.
 
2008-12-28 12:20:13 PM  
Lollercopter.

I love these threads.
 
2008-12-28 12:22:10 PM  
Is the "obvious" tag not working this morning?
 
2008-12-28 12:23:00 PM  
moanerific:

Regardless of your beliefs, explain to me this one thing without getting all smug: If ANY change in "normal" weather patterns (too hot = Global Warming, Too cold = Global Warming, Too much Rain = Global Warming, too little rain = Global Warming) is attributed to global warming, how in the hell can we actually quantitatively measure any effects we have/will have on this 'crisis'????

Seriously this is a catch 22, how can you ever prove that we are making progress if any change in climate is GW? Also who decides what is 'normal climate' seeing how it has been shifting for billions of years?


The same way you do it with another complex and impossible to nail down 100% system... Medicine.

If it causes problems, then it is a problem.

Rising sea levels, weather damage, falling crops where we grow plants, better weather where we aren't set up to grow crops, water wars, population relocations, biota dieoffs... Those would be symptoms.

No doctor would tell you that you're required to have a body temperature of 98.6F exactly, or a particular blood chemistry. But they can usually tell you when you're sick, or that you're doing stuff that will make you sick.
 
2008-12-28 12:23:11 PM  
attackingpencil

Apparently you missed the entire first paragraph of my post so here it is:

Regardless of your beliefs, explain to me this one thing without getting all smug: If ANY change in "normal" weather patterns (too hot = Global Warming, Too cold = Global Warming, Too much Rain = Global Warming, too little rain = Global Warming) is attributed to global warming, how in the hell can we actually quantitatively measure any effects we have/will have on this 'crisis'????


Oh and I do not consider myself ignorant on this topic at all. Just becuase I may have a different opinion than yours does not mean I have done less research....thanks.
 
2008-12-28 12:27:07 PM  

moanerific: attackingpencil


fair enough, but don't you think those who lived in England when the climate was warm enough to grow grapes would argue that their own climate was more ideal? Or widespread farming in Greenland?

You side stepped my question entirely though, so if you have answer I would love to hear it.


If it didn't mean desert conditions for places where massive amounts of people actually live, then yes. On a global scale, no, what's happening is not ideal.

/You're not actually using English Wine as a talking point are you?
 
2008-12-28 12:29:16 PM  
Why are most of the cheerleading comments at the bottom of the article from the Southern US?
 
2008-12-28 12:30:07 PM  

moanerific: Regardless of your beliefs, explain to me this one thing without getting all smug: If ANY change in "normal" weather patterns (too hot = Global Warming, Too cold = Global Warming, Too much Rain = Global Warming, too little rain = Global Warming) is attributed to global warming, how in the hell can we actually quantitatively measure any effects we have/will have on this 'crisis'????


It's called a religion. No matter what happens, even if nothing happens, it is "proof" of their position. All roads lead to Rome, so just farking go to Rome already and stop denying the "obvious".

These are the same idiots that swore 30 years ago it was "global cooling" and 30 years before that called it "global warming" (yes, they have come full circle and are repeating themselves). Since it is obvious they don't know what the hell they are doing, the whole scam has been repackaged at "Climate Change" to cover all possible eventual outcomes and to cover up that they are actually getting ready to recycle "Global Cooling" again.

Of course, there is only one "correct" course of action to prevent "Climate Change", the ones the envirotards have already chosen for us decades ago - a stone age existence for all but the chosen few.
 
2008-12-28 12:31:19 PM  
RussianPooper

You're not actually using English Wine as a talking point are you?

Lol, No just an example.

great name BTW
 
2008-12-28 12:31:41 PM  

moanerific: attackingpencil

Apparently you missed the entire first paragraph of my post so here it is:

Regardless of your beliefs, explain to me this one thing without getting all smug: If ANY change in "normal" weather patterns (too hot = Global Warming, Too cold = Global Warming, Too much Rain = Global Warming, too little rain = Global Warming) is attributed to global warming, how in the hell can we actually quantitatively measure any effects we have/will have on this 'crisis'????


Where did I claim/try to answer that question? I didn't even quote it. Also, I imagine there are quite a few papers out there that address how we can quantitatively measure the effects we can have on this crisis. Which makes it hard for me to take serious this claim:


Oh and I do not consider myself ignorant on this topic at all. Just becuase I may have a different opinion than yours does not mean I have done less research....thanks.


Just for the record I'm not an expert, I just choose to listen to those who are. Since I strongly doubt that you have any actual training in climatology I'll post this (new window)and be off with it
 
2008-12-28 12:36:52 PM  
Oh good well if one year can 'disprove' climate change, then likewise one year can disprove the disprovation.
 
2008-12-28 12:38:37 PM  
attackingpencil


By posting an unrelated article attempting to impune my intelligence you have shown yourself to be the fool here sir.

Thanks for the open mind!
 
2008-12-28 12:41:18 PM  

moanerific: attackingpencil


By posting an unrelated article attempting to impune my intelligence you have shown yourself to be the fool here sir.

Thanks for the open mind!


Ok, prove me wrong. We'll start with: What did your study of climatology entail? What scholar's ideas form the basis of your study? What books were particularly helpful?
 
2008-12-28 12:42:18 PM  
LordZorch:

These are the same idiots that swore 30 years ago it was "global cooling" and 30 years before that called it "global warming" (yes, they have come full circle and are repeating themselves).

Umm... No, and you can quit with that talking point at any time, since it's making you look foolish.

It's called a religion. No matter what happens, even if nothing happens, it is "proof" of their position. All roads lead to Rome, so just farking go to Rome already and stop denying the "obvious".

Funny thing with that line of argument, it cuts both ways. This article is an example of that. "It's cold out today, so ACC is a lie!"

But much like evolution arguments:

img371.imageshack.us
 
2008-12-28 12:48:31 PM  
Is there a course that journalism majors are required to take that prevents them from understanding basic science?

Because Every.Single.Article in every major media outlet that deals with any scientific subject at all is inevitably glaringly wrong.
 
2008-12-28 12:57:10 PM  
iaazathot: Wow...find your meds.

All you liberalists can do is attack massager and not massage
 
2008-12-28 01:05:44 PM  

LewDux: All you liberalists can do is attack massager and not massage


The massage was fine, but the massager wouldn't give me the happy ending I paid for. She DESERVED that black eye.
 
2008-12-28 01:09:46 PM  
DemonEater:

LewDux: All you liberalists can do is attack massager and not massage
---
The massage was fine, but the massager wouldn't give me the happy ending I paid for. She DESERVED that black eye.


Nicely played. I chuckled.
 
2008-12-28 01:13:49 PM  
But...but...but...

AAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL GOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRE!
 
2008-12-28 01:19:56 PM  
moanerific: Regardless of your beliefs, explain to me this one thing without getting all smug: If ANY change in "normal" weather patterns (too hot = Global Warming, Too cold = Global Warming, Too much Rain = Global Warming, too little rain = Global Warming) is attributed to global warming, how in the hell can we actually quantitatively measure any effects we have/will have on this 'crisis'????

You could start by not listening to lay-people who think that some anecdotal weather event proves/disproves global warming. If you let the idiot fringe speak for the people who actually know something, you are committing a strawman fallacy.
 
2008-12-28 01:23:29 PM  

Munchausen's Proxy: I must have missed the peer-reviewed articles proving it beyond a theory.


img1.fark.net

How many more times must the meaning of the word "theory", as used in science, be explained?
 
2008-12-28 01:25:12 PM  
In 2008 thousands upon thousands of independent scientific studies and crystal clear warming trends were disproved by thousands upon thousands of Republican-authored op-eds.
 
2008-12-28 01:29:29 PM  
Unseasonably hot - OMG! teh global warmings!!!
Unseasonably cold - Weather isn't climate. Move along citizen, nothing to see here.
 
2008-12-28 01:30:13 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: You could start by not listening to lay-people who think that some anecdotal weather event proves/disproves global warming. If you let the idiot fringe speak for the people who actually know something, you are committing a strawman fallacy.


I suggest you look up the definition of strawman fallacy, because it doesn't mean what you think it does. What was that about people actually knowing what they're talking about?
 
2008-12-28 01:33:09 PM  
LouDobbsAwaaaay:

You could start by not listening to lay-people who think that some anecdotal weather event proves/disproves global warming. If you let the idiot fringe speak for the people who actually know something, you are committing a strawman fallacy.

Keep in mind that not everyone is going to invest a decade or so in learning climatology in order to freaking understand *non-laymen.*

Which is why this debate and others are always going to be with us.

The Media (whatever that means) is supposed to act as a buffer layer, explaining stuff that some people know to other people who don't know it yet. I'd assume that's in their job description, and they certainly seem to think that it is.

They don't do very well at it.

/ Some guy named Drew probably wrote something to that effect.
 
2008-12-28 01:34:58 PM  

CanisNoir: You see, nobody is claiming that the Climate is a static thing, we just disagree on whether or not *we* are the cause and the be all end all of the problem.


Anyone who thinks that this is what AGW or ACC entails is only interested in arguing with a fictional strawman to avoid becoming informed.
 
2008-12-28 01:37:04 PM  
LordZorch:

Nice troll. I think you hit all of the "retarded skeptic gibbering" talking points.

No matter what happens, even if nothing happens, it is "proof" of their position.

No, that's your strawman. Global warming is evidence of warming (duh). You need several decades of data before a definitive trend can be established, which is why it took several decades for global warming to be strongly supported by the data. Likewise, attribution to human influences was a direct result of measuring increasing CO2 levels, while natural sources of warming such as insolation, etc. failed to provide the necessary warming.

These are the same idiots that swore 30 years ago it was "global cooling"

No, there was never any scientific consensus that claimed there would be global cooling (e.g., here).

Since it is obvious they don't know what the hell they are doing, the whole scam has been repackaged at "Climate Change" to cover all possible eventual outcomes

Wrong again. It was called "climate change" in the scientific literature long before either global warming or global cooling became media buzzwords.

Of course, there is only one "correct" course of action to prevent "Climate Change", the ones the envirotards have already chosen for us decades ago - a stone age existence for all but the chosen few.

Still wrong. Reducing CO2 emission rates to a less risky level does not require returning to a "stone age existence". (e.g.,
 
2008-12-28 01:37:55 PM  
Last link disappeared: here
 
2008-12-28 01:44:26 PM  

Malbar: I suggest you look up the definition of strawman fallacy, because it doesn't mean what you think it does. What was that about people actually knowing what they're talking about?


img142.imageshack.us
 
2008-12-28 01:45:24 PM  
Malbar:

I suggest you look up the definition of strawman fallacy, because it doesn't mean what you think it does.

The following is a strawman:

"If ANY change in "normal" weather patterns (too hot = Global Warming, Too cold = Global Warming, Too much Rain = Global Warming, too little rain = Global Warming) is attributed to global warming"

ANY change is not attributed to global warming.

This is why they stopped calling it global warming and now call it climate change.

As I noted in an earlier post, this is wrong: it was called climate change long before the media ever got a hold of global warming.

Even when the climate starts to cool and their computer models are proven inaccurate

"When"? You must be pretty confident about the future, because that hasn't happened yet.
 
2008-12-28 01:47:22 PM  

Malbar: I suggest you look up the definition of strawman fallacy, because it doesn't mean what you think it does.


First pop off of Google:

"Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. "

In this scenario, the learned people hold position X, and the lay-person holds position Y. Allowing the lay-person to speak for everybody in the community is exactly what is described above.


What was that about people actually knowing what they're talking about?

Next time you try to be smug, you might actually want to be right. Just a tip.
 
2008-12-28 01:48:03 PM  
img512.imageshack.us
 
2008-12-28 01:54:02 PM  
www.ibdeditorial.com
 
2008-12-28 01:55:12 PM  
i39.tinypic.com
 
2008-12-28 01:59:07 PM  
Ambitwistor:

Wrong again. It was called "climate change" in the scientific literature long before either global warming or global cooling became media buzzwords.

Just remind the slow ones that the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988.
 
2008-12-28 02:01:46 PM  
Just remind the slow ones that the International Intergoverntmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988.

/ FTFM
 
2008-12-28 02:03:24 PM  
Thanks to nicksteel for providing further proof that the only thing global warming "skeptics" are skeptical about is the value of a proper education.
 
2008-12-28 02:06:08 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Thanks to nicksteel for providing further proof that the only thing global warming "skeptics" are skeptical about is the value of a proper education.


your statement makes no sense at all. You are claiming that I do not value education because I do not believe in your religion. All you have done is point out your own bias and closed minded attitude.

You also do not understand that I value a sense of humor.
 
2008-12-28 02:13:28 PM  
This is one of the differences between kid's birthday parties and the internet that I have learned, all due to nicksteel.

With kid's birthday parties, the party is just getting started when the clown shows up.

The rest is dawning upon you all now.
 
2008-12-28 02:13:36 PM  

nicksteel: You also do not understand that I value a sense of humor trolling.


FTFY. Also, I don't give a shiat about you, I was commenting about your cartoon.
 
2008-12-28 02:14:19 PM  

maxheck: Ambitwistor:

Wrong again. It was called "climate change" in the scientific literature long before either global warming or global cooling became media buzzwords.

Just remind the slow ones that the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988.


the strange thing about their first report is that they addressed warming at least 38 times and only used cold and cool to address the fact that there would be less cold or cool temperature days.
 
2008-12-28 02:16:18 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: nicksteel: You also do not understand that I value a sense of humor.

FTFY. Also, I don't give a shiat about you, I was commenting about your cartoon.


Is that how you see it?? You talk of skeptics not valuing an education and somehow that is a comment on the cartoon I posted???

At least your lies about global warming make sense on the surface.
 
2008-12-28 02:18:03 PM  

maxheck: This is one of the differences between kid's birthday parties and the internet that I have learned, all due to nicksteel.

With kid's birthday parties, the party is just getting started when the clown shows up.

The rest is dawning upon you all now.


wow, that hurt. Not really.

It really hurts you that the entire world has not bought into your new religion, doesn't it??
 
2008-12-28 02:31:27 PM  
Wow. Three posts in a row. He's really getting desperate for attention.
 
2008-12-28 02:37:51 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Wow. Three posts in a row. He's really getting desperate for attention.


I think people stopped caring.
 
2008-12-28 02:40:56 PM  

mgshamster: I think people stopped caring.


Awwww, that's a shame :)
 
2008-12-28 02:43:57 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Wow. Three posts in a row. He's really getting desperate for attention.


People attack me for not answering every response and now you attack me for doing so. GO figure.


I guess your change of focus is proof that man made climate change is a dead issue.

You are your moron buddies will have to get together and come up with a new way to follow your agenda.
 
2008-12-28 02:50:37 PM  

nicksteel: maxheck: This is one of the differences between kid's birthday parties and the internet that I have learned, all due to nicksteel.

With kid's birthday parties, the party is just getting started when the clown shows up.

The rest is dawning upon you all now.

wow, that hurt. Not really.

It really hurts you that the entire world has not bought into your new religionscientific consensus, doesn't it??



I'm sure it was an honest mistake. I mix those up all the time.
 
2008-12-28 02:59:13 PM  

Kazuya: nicksteel: maxheck: This is one of the differences between kid's birthday parties and the internet that I have learned, all due to nicksteel.

With kid's birthday parties, the party is just getting started when the clown shows up.

The rest is dawning upon you all now.

wow, that hurt. Not really.

It really hurts you that the entire world has not bought into your new religionscientific consensus, doesn't it??


I'm sure it was an honest mistake. I mix those up all the time.


I love how you tree huggers try to convince people that you have a consensus. It is far from it, but what is one more lie in the crap you spew????
 
2008-12-28 03:02:01 PM  

mgshamster: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Wow. Three posts in a row. He's really getting desperate for attention.

I think people stopped caring.


I stopped replying to that guy a while ago. When I told him, he made 4 or 5 posts in a row just plain insulting me. Apparently he thought he could get me to continue biting his trolls and bring me down to his level in the process.

Just put him on ignore and call it a day. He's a known climate change denying troll.
 
2008-12-28 03:04:01 PM  
nicksteel:

I love how you tree huggers try to convince people that you have a consensus. It is far from it, but what is one more lie in the crap you spew????


Ok, I'll bite..

What would it take for you to come to the conclusion that the current reports from the IPCC were correct? (Please note I'm intentionally leaving out my own opinions of the IPCC reports).
 
2008-12-28 03:13:43 PM  

mgshamster: nicksteel:

I love how you tree huggers try to convince people that you have a consensus. It is far from it, but what is one more lie in the crap you spew????

Ok, I'll bite..

What would it take for you to come to the conclusion that the current reports from the IPCC were correct? (Please note I'm intentionally leaving out my own opinions of the IPCC reports).


The IPCC report is a political document. The IPCC admits that the reports are "based on drafts" and they have admitted that the reports have been changed to appease certain governments.

I might be more receptive IF some of the people who prepared those drafts have not made statements that they can no longer support the reports or its conclusions.


Maybe IF you actually had a consensus.

Maybe IF you tree huggers approached the discussion on the topic with an open mind instead of attacking anybody who dares disagree with you I might be more willing listen. When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.
 
2008-12-28 03:14:24 PM  

nicksteel: I love how you tree huggers try to convince people that you have a consensus. It is far from it, but what is one more lie in the crap you spew????



I think you may be mistaking what people mean when they talk about 'scientific consensus' vs simply 'consensus'. An absolute consensus is of course impossible for anything, even for the most basic of scientific knowledge. What people call a 'scientific consensus' is a bit more broad. I think of it more as a general agreement as the basics. There's no clear line, but when you have pretty much every scientific body in the world on board (new window), it gives a pretty clear indicator that there is a 'scientific consensus'.

Hopefully that clears things up a bit.
 
2008-12-28 03:14:50 PM  
nicksteel (favorite: Total Idiot)
 
2008-12-28 03:18:47 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: I love how you tree huggers try to convince people that you have a consensus. It is far from it, but what is one more lie in the crap you spew????


I think you may be mistaking what people mean when they talk about 'scientific consensus' vs simply 'consensus'. An absolute consensus is of course impossible for anything, even for the most basic of scientific knowledge. What people call a 'scientific consensus' is a bit more broad. I think of it more as a general agreement as the basics. There's no clear line, but when you have pretty much every scientific body in the world on board (new window), it gives a pretty clear indicator that there is a 'scientific consensus'.

Hopefully that clears things up a bit.


Seriously??? You use Wikipedia as a source??? That entire site is nothing but opinion.

Then you defend your position by stating that a scientific consensus is not as stringent as a consensus, but screw that up by claiming that "you have pretty much every scientific body in the world on board". Now you are saying that you have a consensus and not just a scientific consensus.

If your attempts to justify your positions were not so funny, I would have put you on ignore a long time ago.
 
2008-12-28 03:19:47 PM  

3rdLostPassword: nicksteel (favorite: Total Idiot)


thanks for proving my point.
 
2008-12-28 03:20:43 PM  

nicksteel: mgshamster: nicksteel:

I love how you tree huggers try to convince people that you have a consensus. It is far from it, but what is one more lie in the crap you spew????

Ok, I'll bite..

What would it take for you to come to the conclusion that the current reports from the IPCC were correct? (Please note I'm intentionally leaving out my own opinions of the IPCC reports).

The IPCC report is a political document. The IPCC admits that the reports are "based on drafts" and they have admitted that the reports have been changed to appease certain governments.

I might be more receptive IF some of the people who prepared those drafts have not made statements that they can no longer support the reports or its conclusions.


Maybe IF you actually had a consensus.

Maybe IF you tree huggers approached the discussion on the topic with an open mind instead of attacking anybody who dares disagree with you I might be more willing listen. When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.



If you want a better response, it's probably not a good idea to start off with a cartoon. Or at least back it up with at least a bit of commentary. The reaction you got had less to do with what you were saying, and more with how you choose to 'discuss' the topic at hand. You should heed your own advice if you want a better result next time.
 
2008-12-28 03:21:44 PM  

bravian: make me some tea: Actually, after watching this (^), I tend to think that climate change is far less of an issue that we'll have to deal with than is global resource depletion due to overpopulation, which is a subject that many have simply seemed to have forgotten. That could come to bear within the next few years.

Ignoring the small fact that population growth is slowing and will start to contract within the next 50 years.


citation needed*
 
2008-12-28 03:21:47 PM  

nicksteel: Kazuya: nicksteel: maxheck: This is one of the differences between kid's birthday parties and the internet that I have learned, all due to nicksteel.

With kid's birthday parties, the party is just getting started when the clown shows up.

The rest is dawning upon you all now.

wow, that hurt. Not really.

It really hurts you that the entire world has not bought into your new religionscientific consensus, doesn't it??


I'm sure it was an honest mistake. I mix those up all the time.

I love how you tree huggers try to convince people that you have a consensus. It is far from it, but what is one more lie in the crap you spew????



Maybe the overwhelming majority of world governments and scientists are wrong. Maybe the fat oil execs and a million meth country bloggers were right all along.
I mean who's to know? They were right about WMDs, the economy, the Iraq war, torture, aggressive diplomacy, deregulation and the Bush Administration so why bother thinking about Science? (it's a bit gay after all)fark!! What am I doing in these hippy clothes smoking this cone I look ridiculous.
Thanks nicksteel for straightening me out, you're an American hero.
 
2008-12-28 03:21:59 PM  
I had 10 gallons of water in my basement here in Wisconsin yesterday, because of the sudden, unexpected snow melt. It was almost in the 50's. In December. In Wisconsin.
 
2008-12-28 03:24:36 PM  

Kazuya: nicksteel: Kazuya: nicksteel: maxheck: This is one of the differences between kid's birthday parties and the internet that I have learned, all due to nicksteel.

With kid's birthday parties, the party is just getting started when the clown shows up.

The rest is dawning upon you all now.

wow, that hurt. Not really.

It really hurts you that the entire world has not bought into your new religionscientific consensus, doesn't it??


I'm sure it was an honest mistake. I mix those up all the time.

I love how you tree huggers try to convince people that you have a consensus. It is far from it, but what is one more lie in the crap you spew????


Maybe the overwhelming majority of world governments and scientists are wrong. Maybe the fat oil execs and a million meth country bloggers were right all along.
I mean who's to know? They were right about WMDs, the economy, the Iraq war, torture, aggressive diplomacy, deregulation and the Bush Administration so why bother thinking about Science? (it's a bit gay after all)fark!! What am I doing in these hippy clothes smoking this cone I look ridiculous.
Thanks nicksteel for straightening me out, you're an American hero.


first, governments are not experts on things scientific.

Second, there is no "overwhelming majority of scientists" who believe in global warming.
 
2008-12-28 03:27:26 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: mgshamster: nicksteel:

I love how you tree huggers try to convince people that you have a consensus. It is far from it, but what is one more lie in the crap you spew????

Ok, I'll bite..

What would it take for you to come to the conclusion that the current reports from the IPCC were correct? (Please note I'm intentionally leaving out my own opinions of the IPCC reports).

The IPCC report is a political document. The IPCC admits that the reports are "based on drafts" and they have admitted that the reports have been changed to appease certain governments.

I might be more receptive IF some of the people who prepared those drafts have not made statements that they can no longer support the reports or its conclusions.


Maybe IF you actually had a consensus.

Maybe IF you tree huggers approached the discussion on the topic with an open mind instead of attacking anybody who dares disagree with you I might be more willing listen. When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.


If you want a better response, it's probably not a good idea to start off with a cartoon. Or at least back it up with at least a bit of commentary. The reaction you got had less to do with what you were saying, and more with how you choose to 'discuss' the topic at hand. You should heed your own advice if you want a better result next time.


I did not attack anybody, I counterattacked.

The cartoon was not an attempt at a discussion. Discussions require words. The cartoon was more of a comment.
 
2008-12-28 03:35:40 PM  

nicksteel:
Maybe IF you tree huggers approached the discussion on the topic with an open mind instead of attacking anybody who dares disagree with you I might be more willing listen. When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.


i105.photobucket.com
 
2008-12-28 03:39:53 PM  
The more climate changes the more it stays the same
get it through your naturally "evolved" skulls liberalismists
 
2008-12-28 03:41:55 PM  

nicksteel: Seriously??? You use Wikipedia as a source??? That entire site is nothing but opinion.

Then you defend your position by stating that a scientific consensus is not as stringent as a consensus, but screw that up by claiming that "you have pretty much every scientific body in the world on board". Now you are saying that you have a consensus and not just a scientific consensus.

If your attempts to justify your positions were not so funny, I would have put you on ignore a long time ago.



Wikipedia isn't a definitive source, but I linked to it for it's own links, not it's opinion - there isn't anywhere else that collects the links to the actual statements put out by the world's scientific bodies in one place. For one who claims to value an open mind, do be so quick to dismiss where it links to, sight unseen.

As for the part above in bold, I think you've missed the point. There is doubtlessly people in those organizations who do not agree with the statements their organizations have put out. What this illustrates is again, a consensus on a broad scale, but not an individual one. If you still don't understand, I can try to word it differently.

If you want another example, one can talk about evolution. There are scientists who do not accept it's basic principles. But evolution's wide base of support means there is again a 'scientific consensus', not a 'consensus' in an absolute sense.
 
2008-12-28 03:43:50 PM  

nicksteel: I did not attack anybody, I counterattacked.

The cartoon was not an attempt at a discussion. Discussions require words. The cartoon was more of a comment.


nicksteel: When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.



Well, again, if you're complaining about the reaction you got, then maybe it's not a good idea to do that next time. You reap what you sow.
 
2008-12-28 03:47:28 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Seriously??? You use Wikipedia as a source??? That entire site is nothing but opinion.

Then you defend your position by stating that a scientific consensus is not as stringent as a consensus, but screw that up by claiming that "you have pretty much every scientific body in the world on board". Now you are saying that you have a consensus and not just a scientific consensus.

If your attempts to justify your positions were not so funny, I would have put you on ignore a long time ago.


Wikipedia isn't a definitive source, but I linked to it for it's own links, not it's opinion - there isn't anywhere else that collects the links to the actual statements put out by the world's scientific bodies in one place. For one who claims to value an open mind, do be so quick to dismiss where it links to, sight unseen.

As for the part above in bold, I think you've missed the point. There is doubtlessly people in those organizations who do not agree with the statements their organizations have put out. What this illustrates is again, a consensus on a broad scale, but not an individual one. If you still don't understand, I can try to word it differently.

If you want another example, one can talk about evolution. There are scientists who do not accept it's basic principles. But evolution's wide base of support means there is again a 'scientific consensus', not a 'consensus' in an absolute sense.


why do you tree huggers always retreat to a discussion about evolution???

Your attempt to climb out from under your blunder concerning consensus is a good example of why I have not put you on ignore. That is the most remarkable load of crap that you have unloaded in a long time.

What illegal drugs are you using???
 
2008-12-28 03:47:33 PM  

FloydA: nicksteel:
Maybe IF you tree huggers approached the discussion on the topic with an open mind instead of attacking anybody who dares disagree with you I might be more willing listen. When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.


Yeah, seems about right. I tried to open up polite discussion, and he immediately attempted to insult me, instead of responding in a rational manner. He made some claims that I can't seem to find any evidence for with a Google search (non-consensus), and he made some claims that, albeit correct, do not infer correctness or incorrectness of claim (IPCC = governmental panel =? bad/wrong/biased).

I'm of the opinion that a decent scientific discussion should include (if not start with) a prospect of falsifiability of one's claims and opinions.

Alas, I am out of time, and must leave for work.

btw, Floyd, I was amused by the gif. :)
 
2008-12-28 03:49:23 PM  

mgshamster: FloydA: nicksteel:
Maybe IF you tree huggers approached the discussion on the topic with an open mind instead of attacking anybody who dares disagree with you I might be more willing listen. When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.

Yeah, seems about right. I tried to open up polite discussion, and he immediately attempted to insult me, instead of responding in a rational manner. He made some claims that I can't seem to find any evidence for with a Google search (non-consensus), and he made some claims that, albeit correct, do not infer correctness or incorrectness of claim (IPCC = governmental panel =? bad/wrong/biased).

I'm of the opinion that a decent scientific discussion should include (if not start with) a prospect of falsifiability of one's claims and opinions.

Alas, I am out of time, and must leave for work.

btw, Floyd, I was amused by the gif. :)


and another tree hugger runs and hides. I answered the questions and your only response is to whine and run????
 
2008-12-28 03:50:50 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: I did not attack anybody, I counterattacked.

The cartoon was not an attempt at a discussion. Discussions require words. The cartoon was more of a comment.

nicksteel: When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.


Well, again, if you're complaining about the reaction you got, then maybe it's not a good idea to do that next time. You reap what you sow.


the reaction that I got was completely out of place, stupid and not well conceived.
 
2008-12-28 03:52:18 PM  
nicksteel:

Maybe IF you tree huggers approached the discussion on the topic with an open mind instead of attacking anybody who dares disagree with you I might be more willing listen

You mean like those "tree huggers" and "morons?" you've spoken of today?

Oh my.

There have been a few reasonably intelligent discussions even in this thread, certainly many before. Some of them even argued the points that you like.

There's a reason that you're Farkied as "ACC troll, argues just to be arguing."
 
2008-12-28 03:52:20 PM  

FloydA: nicksteel:
Maybe IF you tree huggers approached the discussion on the topic with an open mind instead of attacking anybody who dares disagree with you I might be more willing listen. When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.


You are a perfect example of how a tree hugger reacts when the truth of your actions is pointed out to you. thanks for the help
 
2008-12-28 03:54:47 PM  

maxheck: nicksteel:

Maybe IF you tree huggers approached the discussion on the topic with an open mind instead of attacking anybody who dares disagree with you I might be more willing listen

You mean like those "tree huggers" and "morons?" you've spoken of today?

Oh my.

There have been a few reasonably intelligent discussions even in this thread, certainly many before. Some of them even argued the points that you like.

There's a reason that you're Farkied as "ACC troll, argues just to be arguing."


I posted one cartoon and was immediately attacked. I did not start the attacks, I just responded in kind.

Of course, YOU see me as the bad guy.
 
2008-12-28 03:58:52 PM  
nicksteel:

Of course, YOU see me as the bad guy.

With clear eyes and sufficient experience...

Not a bad guy, just an idiot troll. For all I know you're good to your whelps or something.
 
2008-12-28 03:59:23 PM  

nicksteel: why do you tree huggers always retreat to a discussion about evolution???

Your attempt to climb out from under your blunder concerning consensus is a good example of why I have not put you on ignore. That is the most remarkable load of crap that you have unloaded in a long time.

What illegal drugs are you using???


nicksteel: When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.



Again, you should heed your own advice. I invoked evolution as a way of providing an example of a "scientific consensus" as opposed to an absolute consensus in the way that you understand it. If you have a problem with my definitions, then just say it. Don't lash out like a petulant child - again, heed your own advice.
 
2008-12-28 04:00:30 PM  

nicksteel:

You are a perfect example of how a tree hugger reacts when the truth of your actions is pointed out to you. thanks for the help


i105.photobucket.com
 
2008-12-28 04:01:10 PM  

maxheck: nicksteel:

Of course, YOU see me as the bad guy.

With clear eyes and sufficient experience...

Not a bad guy, just an idiot troll. For all I know you're good to your whelps or something.


So, if I counterattack, I am a bad guy. If you call me names, it is okay??

Notice how not one of you has even attempted to respond to my answer about the IPCC report. Is there a reason for that????

I think there is.
 
2008-12-28 04:03:47 PM  

nicksteel:
the reaction that I got was completely out of place, stupid and not well conceived.


Damnhippyfreak: You reap what you sow.



Hey, if you don't mind getting flamed in these threads, then by all means, that's your right. But if you're going to whine about how you're treated, then don't make the first thing you say in a thread a "completely out of place, stupid and not well conceived" cartoon. If that's what you bring to a thread, then that's what you get in return. Don't be surprised.
 
2008-12-28 04:07:07 PM  

nicksteel: Notice how not one of you has even attempted to respond to my answer about the IPCC report. Is there a reason for that????


If you repost it or clarify exactly what point you made (it's a bit cluttered in here), I'll take a stab at it.
 
2008-12-28 04:07:34 PM  
nicksteel:

So, if I counterattack, I am a bad guy.

Counter-counter attack? I do believe you came in here with your little guns a-blazing. You received in kind.

Notice how not one of you has even attempted to respond to my answer about the IPCC report. Is there a reason for that????

What's the specific question ????
 
2008-12-28 04:09:18 PM  

nicksteel:
Notice how not one of you has even attempted to respond to my answer about the IPCC report. Is there a reason for that????

I think there is.


i105.photobucket.com
 
2008-12-28 04:10:35 PM  

maxheck: nicksteel:

So, if I counterattack, I am a bad guy.

Counter-counter attack? I do believe you came in here with your little guns a-blazing. You received in kind.

Notice how not one of you has even attempted to respond to my answer about the IPCC report. Is there a reason for that????

What's the specific question ????


I posted a cartoon. How is that guns ablazing??
 
2008-12-28 04:11:53 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Notice how not one of you has even attempted to respond to my answer about the IPCC report. Is there a reason for that????

If you repost it or clarify exactly what point you made (it's a bit cluttered in here), I'll take a stab at it.


It's not that cluttered, scroll down the screen and you will see it.
 
2008-12-28 04:13:18 PM  

FloydA: nicksteel:
Notice how not one of you has even attempted to respond to my answer about the IPCC report. Is there a reason for that????

I think there is.


See, all you people do is attack the person. Not one of you has had the intelligence or the ability to take a position against what I posted.
 
2008-12-28 04:14:28 PM  
nicksteel:

I posted a cartoon. How is that guns ablazing??

My apologies. What exactly was the statement you were making with your "comment" cartoon again?

How exactly did I say you were a bad guy again?
 
2008-12-28 04:15:01 PM  

nicksteel: It's not that cluttered, scroll down the screen and you will see it.


nicksteel: the strange thing about their first report is that they addressed warming at least 38 times and only used cold and cool to address the fact that there would be less cold or cool temperature days.


nicksteel: The IPCC report is a political document. The IPCC admits that the reports are "based on drafts" and they have admitted that the reports have been changed to appease certain governments.

I might be more receptive IF some of the people who prepared those drafts have not made statements that they can no longer support the reports or its conclusions.



There's a couple of things you said. Is it one of these ones, or both, or one that I missed?
 
2008-12-28 04:15:25 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel:
the reaction that I got was completely out of place, stupid and not well conceived.

Damnhippyfreak: You reap what you sow.


Hey, if you don't mind getting flamed in these threads, then by all means, that's your right. But if you're going to whine about how you're treated, then don't make the first thing you say in a thread a "completely out of place, stupid and not well conceived" cartoon. If that's what you bring to a thread, then that's what you get in return. Don't be surprised.


You seem to be confused. My Boobies was a cartoon. The Weeners to that cartoon was completely out of place, stupid and not well conceived.
 
2008-12-28 04:16:28 PM  
Allow me to summarize this thread for those of you who've just joined us....

nicksteel:
nicksteel:
nicksteel:
nicksteel:
nicksteel:
nicksteel:
nicksteel:


/is that you Tatsuma?
 
2008-12-28 04:16:37 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: It's not that cluttered, scroll down the screen and you will see it.

nicksteel: The IPCC report is a political document. The IPCC admits that the reports are "based on drafts" and they have admitted that the reports have been changed to appease certain governments.

I might be more receptive IF some of the people who prepared those drafts have not made statements that they can no longer support the reports or its conclusions.


There's a couple of things you said. Is it one of these ones, or both, or one that I missed?


try these.
 
2008-12-28 04:16:43 PM  

nicksteel: FloydA: nicksteel:
Notice how not one of you has even attempted to respond to my answer about the IPCC report. Is there a reason for that????

I think there is.

See, all you people do is attack the person. Not one of you has had the intelligence or the ability to take a position against what I posted.


i105.photobucket.com

 
2008-12-28 04:16:47 PM  

nicksteel: See, all you people do is attack the person. Not one of you has had the intelligence or the ability to take a position against what I posted.


nicksteel: why do you tree huggers always retreat to a discussion about evolution???

Your attempt to climb out from under your blunder concerning consensus is a good example of why I have not put you on ignore. That is the most remarkable load of crap that you have unloaded in a long time.

What illegal drugs are you using???



You really need to be less of a hypocrite in these threads. Come on now. Grow up.
 
2008-12-28 04:19:24 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: See, all you people do is attack the person. Not one of you has had the intelligence or the ability to take a position against what I posted.

nicksteel: why do you tree huggers always retreat to a discussion about evolution???

Your attempt to climb out from under your blunder concerning consensus is a good example of why I have not put you on ignore. That is the most remarkable load of crap that you have unloaded in a long time.

What illegal drugs are you using???


You really need to be less of a hypocrite in these threads. Come on now. Grow up.


It was a serious question. Your attempt to defend yourself can only be explained by a serious drug addiction.
 
2008-12-28 04:24:48 PM  
nicksteel:

It was a serious question. Your attempt to defend yourself can only be explained by a serious drug addiction.

If you have ever had a serious question in your life, I have yet to see it here on Fark.

I'm still saddened by how long a certain other Farker fed you in going 'round and 'round about the meaning of the word "control."

Shades of Bill Clinton.

If you have a question that you can state without going off on tangents, then ask it.
 
2008-12-28 04:25:01 PM  

nicksteel: You seem to be confused. My Boobies was a cartoon. The Weeners to that cartoon was completely out of place, stupid and not well conceived.


I think you really misread the response you got. Let's trace it back and hopefully this will clear up. You start off with this cartoon:

www.ibdeditorial.com

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Thanks to nicksteel for providing further proof that the only thing global warming "skeptics" are skeptical about is the value of a proper education.


nicksteel: your statement makes no sense at all. You are claiming that I do not value education because I do not believe in your religion. All you have done is point out your own bias and closed minded attitude.

You also do not understand that I value a sense of humor.



I think what LouDobbsAwaaaay was getting at is that the cartoon demonstrates a lack of knowledge between the idea of weather and climate, something so basic as to cast doubt on the quality of the person's education, and by extension, on the knowledge of who posted it.

I can't stress enough that you get back what you put out in these threads. If the first thing you post in a thread demonstrates a certain amount of ignorance, you probably shouldn't act all butthurt when someone calls you on it. You should really grow a thicker skin, for all the name-calling you yourself do in the threads.
 
2008-12-28 04:25:29 PM  

maxheck: nicksteel:

I posted a cartoon. How is that guns ablazing??

My apologies. What exactly was the statement you were making with your "comment" cartoon again?

How exactly did I say you were a bad guy again?


It was just a funny cartoon that was 100% on topic.

You continue to call me a troll simply because I defend myself. That, in my opinion, is calling me the bad guy. It is obvious that you came in to the middle of this attack without reading my original posts or you would have known that my Boobies was a cartoon. You start attacking me without reading my posts, that would make you a troll.
 
2008-12-28 04:28:11 PM  

nicksteel: It was a serious question. Your attempt to defend yourself can only be explained by a serious drug addiction.


nicksteel: When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.



Again, you really need to stop bashing yourself like this. And you still haven't responded to my argument at all about the definition of a 'scientific consensus'.
 
2008-12-28 04:29:29 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: You seem to be confused. My Boobies was a cartoon. The Weeners to that cartoon was completely out of place, stupid and not well conceived.

I think you really misread the response you got. Let's trace it back and hopefully this will clear up. You start off with this cartoon:

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Thanks to nicksteel for providing further proof that the only thing global warming "skeptics" are skeptical about is the value of a proper education.

nicksteel: your statement makes no sense at all. You are claiming that I do not value education because I do not believe in your religion. All you have done is point out your own bias and closed minded attitude.

You also do not understand that I value a sense of humor.


I think what LouDobbsAwaaaay was getting at is that the cartoon demonstrates a lack of knowledge between the idea of weather and climate, something so basic as to cast doubt on the quality of the person's education, and by extension, on the knowledge of who posted it.

I can't stress enough that you get back what you put out in these threads. If the first thing you post in a thread demonstrates a certain amount of ignorance, you probably shouldn't act all butthurt when someone calls you on it. You should really grow a thicker skin, for all the name-calling you yourself do in the threads.


Is that really what you got out of LouDobbsAwaaaay's response?? You are reading way too much into one sentence. All your nice words means that he was calling me stupid.

If I get back what I put in, why was I attacked FIRST??? My skin is plenty thick, but I will respond to any and all attacks.
 
2008-12-28 04:33:14 PM  

nicksteel: Is that really what you got out of LouDobbsAwaaaay's response?? You are reading way too much into one sentence. All your nice words means that he was calling me stupid.

If I get back what I put in, why was I attacked FIRST??? My skin is plenty thick, but I will respond to any and all attacks.



And what I've been trying to get across to you is that if you post a stupid cartoon, don't be surprised if it, and you by extension, get called stupid. And if your skin is plenty thick, then why are you still whining so much about the bad man and how he hurt your feelings? Grow up and get over it already.
 
2008-12-28 04:34:32 PM  
By the author's method of determining global cooling, we've had a heck of a lot of it over the last 40 years:
i277.photobucket.com

Yet...
i277.photobucket.com
 
2008-12-28 04:36:31 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: It was a serious question. Your attempt to defend yourself can only be explained by a serious drug addiction.

nicksteel: When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.


Again, you really need to stop bashing yourself like this. And you still haven't responded to my argument at all about the definition of a 'scientific consensus'.


Your argument about a scientific consensus was, as I pointed out before, pathetic. You try to explain that a scientific consensus is not as stringent as a consensus and then go on to explain that your scientific consensus has overwhelming support, thus being a consensus.

Then you tried to climb out from under than blunder by stating that some of the scientists at those scientific centers probably did not agree with the rest, thus no longer a consensus, buy a scientific consensus.

It sounds stupid when I try to explain it and I see no reason to discuss it.


What you fail to realize is that people have been attacking me for no reason other than I disagree with their position. My "attack" on you was based on some rather stupid comments and explantions on your part. To be honest, your posts and your attempts to explain yourself remind me of a guy at college who was burnt out on drugs. You call yourself a hippie, so the use of drugs is implied in your name.
 
2008-12-28 04:38:20 PM  

nicksteel: What you fail to realize is that people have been attacking me for no reason other than I disagree with their position.


By the way, what is your official position now? What all, exactly, do you disagree with? And quite a few people are also attacking your arguments because they don't hold water.
 
2008-12-28 04:41:59 PM  

trofl: By the author's method of determining global cooling, we've had a heck of a lot of it over the last 40 years:


Yet...


He was only addressing the last year, yes, fallacious to base climate change on one year's worth of data.

trofl: nicksteel: What you fail to realize is that people have been attacking me for no reason other than I disagree with their position.

By the way, what is your official position now? What all, exactly, do you disagree with? And quite a few people are also attacking your arguments because they don't hold water.


not one person in this thread has attacked my arguments. They just attack me.
 
2008-12-28 04:42:10 PM  
FloydA:

i105.photobucket.com

Commie
 
2008-12-28 04:43:48 PM  

trofl: By the author's method of determining global cooling, we've had a heck of a lot of it over the last 40 years:


Yet...


he was just referring to events this year. I agree that basing his decision solely on the weather over the past year is not correct, but he also mentions that several agencies and groups have reversed their earlier opinion on the subject.
 
2008-12-28 04:45:16 PM  

nicksteel: What you fail to realize is that people have been attacking me for no reason other than I disagree with their position. My "attack" on you was based on some rather stupid comments and explantions on your part. To be honest, your posts and your attempts to explain yourself remind me of a guy at college who was burnt out on drugs. You call yourself a hippie, so the use of drugs is implied in your name.


nicksteel: When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.



Again, grow up. Or at the very least, stop being such a hypocrite.

There's two arguments currently on the table that you have not or cannot respond to. You haven't addressed my argument about the definition of a 'scientific consensus'. And I asked you a direct question about your opinion on the IPCC so I can address it.

If you continue to not address these ideas, and keep on throwing a childish temper tantrum, I'll have to assume you, as your own statement indicates, "does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently".
 
2008-12-28 04:45:45 PM  
img352.imageshack.us
 
2008-12-28 04:46:06 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Is that really what you got out of LouDobbsAwaaaay's response?? You are reading way too much into one sentence. All your nice words means that he was calling me stupid.

If I get back what I put in, why was I attacked FIRST??? My skin is plenty thick, but I will respond to any and all attacks.


And what I've been trying to get across to you is that if you post a stupid cartoon, don't be surprised if it, and you by extension, get called stupid. And if your skin is plenty thick, then why are you still whining so much about the bad man and how he hurt your feelings? Grow up and get over it already.


the cartoon was not stupid. I'm not whining about anybody attacking me. I pointed out that his attacking me was why I counterattacked.
 
2008-12-28 04:48:15 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: What you fail to realize is that people have been attacking me for no reason other than I disagree with their position. My "attack" on you was based on some rather stupid comments and explantions on your part. To be honest, your posts and your attempts to explain yourself remind me of a guy at college who was burnt out on drugs. You call yourself a hippie, so the use of drugs is implied in your name.

nicksteel: When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.


Again, grow up. Or at the very least, stop being such a hypocrite.

There's two arguments currently on the table that you have not or cannot respond to. You haven't addressed my argument about the definition of a 'scientific consensus'. And I asked you a direct question about your opinion on the IPCC so I can address it.

If you continue to not address these ideas, and keep on throwing a childish temper tantrum, I'll have to assume you, as your own statement indicates, "does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently".


I have addressed your statement about consensus. If you want an intelligent discussion on the subject, start with an intelligent statement.

I gave you my impression of the IPCC report - twice.
 
2008-12-28 04:48:16 PM  

nicksteel: Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Is that really what you got out of LouDobbsAwaaaay's response?? You are reading way too much into one sentence. All your nice words means that he was calling me stupid.

If I get back what I put in, why was I attacked FIRST??? My skin is plenty thick, but I will respond to any and all attacks.


And what I've been trying to get across to you is that if you post a stupid cartoon, don't be surprised if it, and you by extension, get called stupid. And if your skin is plenty thick, then why are you still whining so much about the bad man and how he hurt your feelings? Grow up and get over it already.

the cartoon was not stupid. I'm not whining about anybody attacking me. I pointed out that his attacking me was why I counterattacked.



Then for chrissakes shut up about it already if you're not whining. Get over it!
 
2008-12-28 04:49:01 PM  

nicksteel: the cartoon was not stupid


nicksteel: I agree that basing his decision solely on the weather over the past year is not correct


Wait, what?
 
2008-12-28 04:50:56 PM  
Otto_E_Rodika

Off by about a factor of 10 there, buddy.
 
2008-12-28 04:51:27 PM  

trofl: nicksteel: the cartoon was not stupid

nicksteel: I agree that basing his decision solely on the weather over the past year is not correct

Wait, what?


The cartoon showed the typical response of people who know nothing about climate change. That made it funny, just like stating that one year's worth of temperature data proves that global warming is dead.
 
2008-12-28 04:52:35 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Is that really what you got out of LouDobbsAwaaaay's response?? You are reading way too much into one sentence. All your nice words means that he was calling me stupid.

If I get back what I put in, why was I attacked FIRST??? My skin is plenty thick, but I will respond to any and all attacks.


And what I've been trying to get across to you is that if you post a stupid cartoon, don't be surprised if it, and you by extension, get called stupid. And if your skin is plenty thick, then why are you still whining so much about the bad man and how he hurt your feelings? Grow up and get over it already.

the cartoon was not stupid. I'm not whining about anybody attacking me. I pointed out that his attacking me was why I counterattacked.


Then for chrissakes shut up about it already if you're not whining. Get over it!


uh, you are the one who is not getting over it.


light one up for me!!!
 
2008-12-28 04:57:11 PM  

nicksteel:

not one person in this thread has attacked my arguments. They just attack me.


i105.photobucket.com

 
2008-12-28 04:57:12 PM  
onfinite.com
 
2008-12-28 05:00:20 PM  

nicksteel:
I have addressed your statement about consensus. If you want an intelligent discussion on the subject, start with an intelligent statement.

I gave you my impression of the IPCC report - twice.



Alright. At least we got you back on topic. I'll reiterate my argument on 'scientific consensus' first, then get to the IPCC. You started off with this, and I attempted to explain why a 'scientific consensus' differs from what you're talking about, a 'consensus' in an absolute sense.

nicksteel: I love how you tree huggers try to convince people that you have a consensus. It is far from it, but what is one more lie in the crap you spew????


Damnhippyfreak: I think you may be mistaking what people mean when they talk about 'scientific consensus' vs simply 'consensus'. An absolute consensus is of course impossible for anything, even for the most basic of scientific knowledge. What people call a 'scientific consensus' is a bit more broad. I think of it more as a general agreement as the basics. There's no clear line, but when you have pretty much every scientific body in the world on board (new window), it gives a pretty clear indicator that there is a 'scientific consensus'.

Hopefully that clears things up a bit.


Damnhippyfreak: As for the part above in bold, I think you've missed the point. There is doubtlessly people in those organizations who do not agree with the statements their organizations have put out. What this illustrates is again, a consensus on a broad scale, but not an individual one. If you still don't understand, I can try to word it differently.

If you want another example, one can talk about evolution. There are scientists who do not accept it's basic principles. But evolution's wide base of support means there is again a 'scientific consensus', not a 'consensus' in an absolute sense.


nicksteel: why do you tree huggers always retreat to a discussion about evolution???

Your attempt to climb out from under your blunder concerning consensus is a good example of why I have not put you on ignore. That is the most remarkable load of crap that you have unloaded in a long time.

What illegal drugs are you using???


You really haven't addressed my argument or definitions at all here. Again, there is a difference between 'scientific consensus' and 'consensus' in an absolute sense (much in the same way that 'scientific theory' differs from 'theory'). The first is an indicator of the vast majority of scientific opinion, and the latter means that every individual agrees with an opinion. The first can be better understood on a collective level, while the latter on an individual matter. Hopefully that's more clear.
 
2008-12-28 05:03:39 PM  

nicksteel: Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Is that really what you got out of LouDobbsAwaaaay's response?? You are reading way too much into one sentence. All your nice words means that he was calling me stupid.

If I get back what I put in, why was I attacked FIRST??? My skin is plenty thick, but I will respond to any and all attacks.


And what I've been trying to get across to you is that if you post a stupid cartoon, don't be surprised if it, and you by extension, get called stupid. And if your skin is plenty thick, then why are you still whining so much about the bad man and how he hurt your feelings? Grow up and get over it already.

the cartoon was not stupid. I'm not whining about anybody attacking me. I pointed out that his attacking me was why I counterattacked.


nicksteel: Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Is that really what you got out of LouDobbsAwaaaay's response?? You are reading way too much into one sentence. All your nice words means that he was calling me stupid.

If I get back what I put in, why was I attacked FIRST??? My skin is plenty thick, but I will respond to any and all attacks.


And what I've been trying to get across to you is that if you post a stupid cartoon, don't be surprised if it, and you by extension, get called stupid. And if your skin is plenty thick, then why are you still whining so much about the bad man and how he hurt your feelings? Grow up and get over it already.

the cartoon was not stupid. I'm not whining about anybody attacking me. I pointed out that his attacking me was why I counterattacked.


Then for chrissakes shut up about it already if you're not whining. Get over it!

uh, you are the one who is not getting over it.


light one up for me!!!


Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel:
I have addressed your statement about consensus. If you want an intelligent discussion on the subject, start with an intelligent statement.

I gave you my impression of the IPCC report - twice.


Alright. At least we got you back on topic. I'll reiterate my argument on 'scientific consensus' first, then get to the IPCC. You started off with this, and I attempted to explain why a 'scientific consensus' differs from what you're talking about, a 'consensus' in an absolute sense.

nicksteel: I love how you tree huggers try to convince people that you have a consensus. It is far from it, but what is one more lie in the crap you spew????

Damnhippyfreak: I think you may be mistaking what people mean when they talk about 'scientific consensus' vs simply 'consensus'. An absolute consensus is of course impossible for anything, even for the most basic of scientific knowledge. What people call a 'scientific consensus' is a bit more broad. I think of it more as a general agreement as the basics. There's no clear line, but when you have pretty much every scientific body in the world on board (new window), it gives a pretty clear indicator that there is a 'scientific consensus'.

Hopefully that clears things up a bit.

Damnhippyfreak: As for the part above in bold, I think you've missed the point. There is doubtlessly people in those organizations who do not agree with the statements their organizations have put out. What this illustrates is again, a consensus on a broad scale, but not an individual one. If you still don't understand, I can try to word it differently.

If you want another example, one can talk about evolution. There are scientists who do not accept it's basic principles. But evolution's wide base of support means there is again a 'scientific consensus', not a 'consensus' in an absolute sense.

nicksteel: why do you tree huggers always retreat to a discussion about evolution???

Your attempt to climb out from under your blunder concerning consensus is a good example of why I have not put you on ignore. That is the most remarkable load of crap that you have unloaded in a long time.

What illegal drugs are you using???

You really haven't addressed my argument or definitions at all here. Again, there is a difference between 'scientific consensus' and 'consensus' in an absolute sense (much in the same way that 'scientific theory' differs from 'theory'). The first is an indicator of the vast majority of scientific opinion, and the latter means that every individual agrees with an opinion. The first can be better understood on a collective level, while the latter on an individual matter. Hopefully that's more clear.


your initial argument was a mess.

So do you have 51% on your side?? 60%?
 
2008-12-28 05:05:39 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Otto_E_Rodika

Off by about a factor of 10 there, buddy.


Yes... I was being a smart ass and going for an overall effect and I'm indeed off by a factor of 10, buddy.

So let's correct it to .4 degrees in 60 years, which is what the chart shows. That averages out to an increase of .006 per year. My god, what a crisis. This couldn't possibly be the result of natural events, could it? I mean, it's not like the earth ever went through other changes in climate before people drove SUV's, so of course, it has to be us evil Americans and our consumer lifestyle.
 
2008-12-28 05:08:24 PM  
Otto_E_Rodika

I don't care how you rationalize your beliefs. I just wanted to point out that you were very, very wrong.

Buddy.
 
2008-12-28 05:10:48 PM  

Otto_E_Rodika: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Otto_E_Rodika

Off by about a factor of 10 there, buddy.

Yes... I was being a smart ass and going for an overall effect and I'm indeed off by a factor of 10, buddy.

So let's correct it to .4 degrees in 60 years, which is what the chart shows. That averages out to an increase of .006 per year. My god, what a crisis.


If we count the number of human testicles in the US and divide by the number of Americans, it works out to an average of about one testicle per person. Do you conclude that you've been miscounting your balls all this time? Why not?
 
2008-12-28 05:12:07 PM  

Otto_E_Rodika: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Otto_E_Rodika

Off by about a factor of 10 there, buddy.

Yes... I was being a smart ass and going for an overall effect and I'm indeed off by a factor of 10, buddy.

So let's correct it to .4 degrees in 60 years, which is what the chart shows. That averages out to an increase of .006 per year. My god, what a crisis. This couldn't possibly be the result of natural events, could it? I mean, it's not like the earth ever went through other changes in climate before people drove SUV's, so of course, it has to be us evil Americans and our consumer lifestyle.


Yep, It's that 5% of C02 emissions that are causing the problem, the other 95% is inert, I guess.
 
2008-12-28 05:17:51 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Otto_E_Rodika

I don't care how you rationalize your beliefs. I just wanted to point out that you were very, very wrong.

Buddy.


Not a belief, just pointing out the science doesn't support the hysteria as preached by the Church of Green and Rev. Gore.

And if indeed the earth is heating (or cooling, or climate changing) outside of the norm, we are looking at a very small slice of data when compared to billions of years of climate. And then, we have to a)determine if this is man-made (unproven) and b)show that this will have a negative impact on the environment (also unproven).

Seeing as how the earth's temperature has fluctuated wildly in the past, one can assume that it will continue to do so in the future. That's change we can believe in, buddy.
 
2008-12-28 05:20:19 PM  

Otto_E_Rodika: Not a belief, just pointing out the science doesn't support the hysteria as preached by the Church of Green and Rev. Gore.

And if indeed the earth is heating (or cooling, or climate changing) outside of the norm, we are looking at a very small slice of data when compared to billions of years of climate. And then, we have to a)determine if this is man-made (unproven) and b)show that this will have a negative impact on the environment (also unproven).

Seeing as how the earth's temperature has fluctuated wildly in the past, one can assume that it will continue to do so in the future. That's change we can believe in, buddy.



If I want to listen to rehashed dribble from 2001, I'll take it from someone who can manage 2nd grade arithmetic. Buddy.
 
2008-12-28 05:21:03 PM  

FloydA: Otto_E_Rodika: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Otto_E_Rodika

Off by about a factor of 10 there, buddy.

Yes... I was being a smart ass and going for an overall effect and I'm indeed off by a factor of 10, buddy.

So let's correct it to .4 degrees in 60 years, which is what the chart shows. That averages out to an increase of .006 per year. My god, what a crisis.

If we count the number of human testicles in the US and divide by the number of Americans, it works out to an average of about one testicle per person. Do you conclude that you've been miscounting your balls all this time? Why not?


This is exactly the kind of so called "science" we've been subjected to. Maybe in your household, the women have testicles, but most researchers would probably exclude the female component from the equation. Thanks for playing, Lance Armstrong.
 
2008-12-28 05:21:26 PM  

nicksteel: The IPCC report is a political document. The IPCC admits that the reports are "based on drafts" and they have admitted that the reports have been changed to appease certain governments.

I might be more receptive IF some of the people who prepared those drafts have not made statements that they can no longer support the reports or its conclusions.



Alright. We can finally get to this. You bring an important observation, that the IPCC was borne out of a process that has political aspects. But you are mischaracterizing it as only a political document. Politics does play a role, of course, but the IPCC reports are not simply political opinion. They use as their raw data, an exhaustive survey of scientific findings. So you cannot describe the IPCC reports as purely a political construction, but neither can you describe them as purely scientific.

As for your second assertion, about dissatisfaction with the IPCC process itself. The reports are consensus-driven - that is to say that they aim to be agreed upon by every every country involved, and have managed to do so. And as for people resigning from the process itself, one has to remember that dissatisfaction went both ways - people thought the IPCC reports went too far in their characterization, and some thought not far enough. These two ideas combined give the indication that the IPCC reports are fairly moderate in their characterization - that it has passed muster by every country involved, and that there is dissatisfaction on both extremes.

The idea to take away is that the IPCC reports are of course not perfect and of course are borne out of a negotiated, imperfect process. That does not mean that they are completely invalid or wrong. They are imperfect, but the best estimation we have of what's going on in terms of climate change and it's effects. That is why the reports are given such weight - there is no better estimation and overview of the totality of scientific knowledge on the subject.
 
2008-12-28 05:21:53 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Otto_E_Rodika: Not a belief, just pointing out the science doesn't support the hysteria as preached by the Church of Green and Rev. Gore.

And if indeed the earth is heating (or cooling, or climate changing) outside of the norm, we are looking at a very small slice of data when compared to billions of years of climate. And then, we have to a)determine if this is man-made (unproven) and b)show that this will have a negative impact on the environment (also unproven).

Seeing as how the earth's temperature has fluctuated wildly in the past, one can assume that it will continue to do so in the future. That's change we can believe in, buddy.


If I want to listen to rehashed dribble from 2001, I'll take it from someone who can manage 2nd grade arithmetic. Buddy.


why do you supporters always ignore water vapor as a greenhouse gas?? It is never mentioned in your literature.
 
2008-12-28 05:23:35 PM  

Otto_E_Rodika: Thanks for playing, Lance Armstrong.


Alright, I have to admit this made me lol.
 
2008-12-28 05:24:00 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: The IPCC report is a political document. The IPCC admits that the reports are "based on drafts" and they have admitted that the reports have been changed to appease certain governments.

I might be more receptive IF some of the people who prepared those drafts have not made statements that they can no longer support the reports or its conclusions.


Alright. We can finally get to this. You bring an important observation, that the IPCC was borne out of a process that has political aspects. But you are mischaracterizing it as only a political document. Politics does play a role, of course, but the IPCC reports are not simply political opinion. They use as their raw data, an exhaustive survey of scientific findings. So you cannot describe the IPCC reports as purely a political construction, but neither can you describe them as purely scientific.

As for your second assertion, about dissatisfaction with the IPCC process itself. The reports are consensus-driven - that is to say that they aim to be agreed upon by every every country involved, and have managed to do so. And as for people resigning from the process itself, one has to remember that dissatisfaction went both ways - people thought the IPCC reports went too far in their characterization, and some thought not far enough. These two ideas combined give the indication that the IPCC reports are fairly moderate in their characterization - that it has passed muster by every country involved, and that there is dissatisfaction on both extremes.

The idea to take away is that the IPCC reports are of course not perfect and of course are borne out of a negotiated, imperfect process. That does not mean that they are completely invalid or wrong. They are imperfect, but the best estimation we have of what's going on in terms of climate change and it's effects. That is why the reports are given such weight - there is no better estimation and overview of the totality of scientific knowledge on the subject.


the raw data IS scientific. The interpretations is purely political. In their words, it is "based upon the data". I saw a movie once that was based on a book, the only thing the movie and the book had in common was the title.
 
2008-12-28 05:29:04 PM  

Otto_E_Rodika: FloydA: Otto_E_Rodika: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Otto_E_Rodika

Off by about a factor of 10 there, buddy.

Yes... I was being a smart ass and going for an overall effect and I'm indeed off by a factor of 10, buddy.

So let's correct it to .4 degrees in 60 years, which is what the chart shows. That averages out to an increase of .006 per year. My god, what a crisis.

If we count the number of human testicles in the US and divide by the number of Americans, it works out to an average of about one testicle per person. Do you conclude that you've been miscounting your balls all this time? Why not?

This is exactly the kind of so called "science" we've been subjected to. Maybe in your household, the women have testicles, but most researchers would probably exclude the female component from the equation. Thanks for playing, Lance Armstrong.



The "woosh" noise was the point going over your head.


I'm not going to bother discussing paleoclimatology with you if simple statistical calculations confuse you so much. I'll just resort to open mockery and ridicule like I've been doing to nicksteel.
 
2008-12-28 05:30:48 PM  

nicksteel: why do you supporters always ignore water vapor as a greenhouse gas?? It is never mentioned in your literature.


BS. Water vapor may be the most abundant GHG, but it's not the most abundant anthropogenic GHG. Its concentration is controlled by the temperature (see: Clausius-Clapeyron relation), so it's a positive feedback, but not a forcing.

See: [1][2][3], etc. Indeed, it this distinction is made in the IPCC.
 
2008-12-28 05:33:16 PM  
Propaganda shouldn't get greenlit.
 
2008-12-28 05:34:48 PM  

nicksteel: your initial argument was a mess.

So do you have 51% on your side?? 60%?


I'll repost the last line, because that best encapsulates what I was trying to get across:

Damnhippyfreak: there is a difference between 'scientific consensus' and 'consensus' in an absolute sense (much in the same way that 'scientific theory' differs from 'theory'). The first is an indicator of the vast majority of scientific opinion, and the latter means that every individual agrees with an opinion. The first can be better understood on a collective level, while the latter on an individual matter.



It's not as clear as putting a specific percentage on who agrees. The idea of a 'scientific consensus' is imprecise in it's definition. I see it more as a characterization than a specific benchmark. What I cited before to support this was the fact that every major scientific body agrees with the basics of ACC. That certainly gives a good indication as to how well supported the idea is, and it's so well supported that it most certainly can be called a 'scientific consensus'. Again, individuals do disagree, and again that's true for any knowledge. But the overwhelming collective weight does favor ACC.

Again, think of evolution and how it's seen by the scientific community. How would one characterize it's wide and deep base of support, even though it's not absolute? The idea emerges is that of a 'scientific consensus'.

All of this was to try and explain how both you and the person you were arguing with are both right. There is an 'scientific consensus', but not an absolute consensus. Your disagreement was stemming on your two differing definitions of consensus.
 
2008-12-28 05:35:21 PM  

trofl: nicksteel: why do you supporters always ignore water vapor as a greenhouse gas?? It is never mentioned in your literature.

BS. Water vapor may be the most abundant GHG, but it's not the most abundant anthropogenic GHG. Its concentration is controlled by the temperature (see: Clausius-Clapeyron relation), so it's a positive feedback, but not a forcing.

See: [1][2][3], etc. Indeed, it this distinction is made in the IPCC.


but it is also, by far, the most abundant greenhouse gas. By comparison, man made CO2 is less than .5%. All the greenhouse gases impact the temperature and if we completely eliminated man made CO2, it wouldn't make a dent in the overall volume remaining.

You cannot say that water vapor is a positive feedback because while it is controlled by the temperature, it also influences the temperature.
 
2008-12-28 05:36:54 PM  

nicksteel: You cannot say that water vapor is a positive feedback because while it is controlled by the temperature, it also influences the temperature.


THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT A FEEDBACK IS!

Wow.
 
2008-12-28 05:38:10 PM  

trofl: nicksteel: You cannot say that water vapor is a positive feedback because while it is controlled by the temperature, it also influences the temperature.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT A FEEDBACK IS!

Wow.


but not a POSITIVE feedback.


Look at you, attacking me again for no good reason. How mature of you.
 
2008-12-28 05:39:35 PM  

nicksteel: but it is also, by far, the most abundant greenhouse gas. By comparison, man made CO2 is less than .5%. All the greenhouse gases impact the temperature and if we completely eliminated man made CO2, it wouldn't make a dent in the overall volume remaining.


Furthermore, not all GHG work alike. A small bit of methane can cause a whole more forcing than the same amount of CO2 or H2O. Also, CO2 and H2O work on different bands. They can both be working together at the same time. It's not like H2O excludes CO2 from doing its thing. And again, CO2 is the most abundant anthropogenic greenhouse gas: it's the one's that's changing and causing the initial forcing, and what we can actually control.
 
2008-12-28 05:39:55 PM  

nicksteel: the raw data IS scientific. The interpretations is purely political. In their words, it is "based upon the data". I saw a movie once that was based on a book, the only thing the movie and the book had in common was the title.


To be fair, that's a overly simplistic false analogy. If your movie was a technical report that cited all it's scenes to specific wording from excerpts from several books, was reviewed though multiple drafts by experts on those books, and was subsequently vetted through every person or organization involved in making the movie, then it would be more apt.

And one would have to take the movie seriously if it was the best synthesis of those books that was available, even though imperfect.
 
2008-12-28 05:40:30 PM  
Otto_E_Rodika:

So let's correct it to .4 degrees in 60 years, which is what the chart shows. That averages out to an increase of .006 per year. My god, what a crisis.

0.4 degrees is already large enough to have measurable impacts on ecosystems. But the existing change is not what people are worried about. It's the possibility of 2-5 more degrees of change over the next century.

This couldn't possibly be the result of natural events, could it?

No, not according to the evidence.

Not a belief, just pointing out the science doesn't support the hysteria as preached by the Church of Green and Rev. Gore.

You haven't pointed out any such thing.

By the way, mentioning Al Gore is my litmus test to determine whether someone is serious about discussing the science, or is unable to distinguish between science and their personal rage against Al Gore. Clue: Al Gore's views on anything have nothing to do with the science.

And if indeed the earth is heating (or cooling, or climate changing) outside of the norm, we are looking at a very small slice of data when compared to billions of years of climate.

The climate billions of years ago is rather irrelevant to what the climate is doing today, and what's causing it.

And then, we have to a)determine if this is man-made (unproven) and b)show that this will have a negative impact on the environment (also unproven).

Both are rather well established. See the IPCC Working Groups 1 and 2, respectively.

Seeing as how the earth's temperature has fluctuated wildly in the past, one can assume that it will continue to do so in the future.

Wow, you're a genius. We know climate has changed in the past. No, multi-degree changes in less than a century are not common.
 
2008-12-28 05:40:57 PM  

nicksteel: trofl: nicksteel: You cannot say that water vapor is a positive feedback because while it is controlled by the temperature, it also influences the temperature.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT A FEEDBACK IS!

Wow.

but not a POSITIVE feedback.


Look at you, attacking me again for no good reason. How mature of you.


Ok, now you are being an idiot. A positive feedback enhances the change. Higher temperature -> more water vapor -> higher temperature, etc. Lower temperature -> less water vapor -> lower temperature, etc. IT'S A FARKING POSITIVE FEEDBACK, idiot! You're deserving of this now, you know.
 
2008-12-28 05:42:23 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: the raw data IS scientific. The interpretations is purely political. In their words, it is "based upon the data". I saw a movie once that was based on a book, the only thing the movie and the book had in common was the title.

To be fair, that's a overly simplistic false analogy. If your movie was a technical report that cited all it's scenes to specific wording from excerpts from several books, was reviewed though multiple drafts by experts on those books, and was subsequently vetted through every person or organization involved in making the movie, then it would be more apt.

And one would have to take the movie seriously if it was the best synthesis of those books that was available, even though imperfect.


It was an example of how "based upon" can be stretched beyond reality. The IPCC report is, by your own admission, a political document. Live with it.
 
2008-12-28 05:48:33 PM  
nicksteel, here's your chance. Point out a scientific paper that says that water vapor imparts a negative feedback on temperature. Then I'll take back what I said.
 
2008-12-28 05:49:39 PM  

nicksteel: the raw data IS scientific. The interpretations is purely political. In their words, it is "based upon the data". I saw a movie once that was based on a book, the only thing the movie and the book had in common was the title.


Again, this is an untrue statement. The fact is that every statement the IPCC makes in it's reports is cited and does represent a synthesis of the scientific literature. The reasoning of the IPCC reports is purely transparent and cited directly to the scientific literature. Again, political processes of course played a part, but it was also based on the science. To call the IPCC reports purely political is incredibly blinkered and simplistic.

What this means is that one, as always, should read the reports critically. But that does not mean to reject them outright based on a simplistic, false view of the process. Your opinion would reject the findings of the IPCC reports, completely regardless of the quality or the veracity of the findings themselves. Your argument would reject the IPCC reports without even cracking open the cover of one of them. That does not speak well for how open of a mind you have.
 
2008-12-28 05:49:53 PM  

trofl: nicksteel: trofl: nicksteel: You cannot say that water vapor is a positive feedback because while it is controlled by the temperature, it also influences the temperature.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT A FEEDBACK IS!

Wow.

but not a POSITIVE feedback.


Look at you, attacking me again for no good reason. How mature of you.

Ok, now you are being an idiot. A positive feedback enhances the change. Higher temperature -> more water vapor -> higher temperature, etc. Lower temperature -> less water vapor -> lower temperature, etc. IT'S A FARKING POSITIVE FEEDBACK, idiot! You're deserving of this now, you know.



Then why does the IPCC ignore water vapor? Which was my original question. Why the focus on less than .5% of the total greenhouse gases? All the greenhouse gases contribute to the change and man made CO2 is a very, very small percentage.
 
2008-12-28 05:51:52 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: the raw data IS scientific. The interpretations is purely political. In their words, it is "based upon the data". I saw a movie once that was based on a book, the only thing the movie and the book had in common was the title.

Again, this is an untrue statement. The fact is that every statement the IPCC makes in it's reports is cited and does represent a synthesis of the scientific literature. The reasoning of the IPCC reports is purely transparent and cited directly to the scientific literature. Again, political processes of course played a part, but it was also based on the science. To call the IPCC reports purely political is incredibly blinkered and simplistic.

What this means is that one, as always, should read the reports critically. But that does not mean to reject them outright based on a simplistic, false view of the process. Your opinion would reject the findings of the IPCC reports, completely regardless of the quality or the veracity of the findings themselves. Your argument would reject the IPCC reports without even cracking open the cover of one of them. That does not speak well for how open of a mind you have.


The final document, by your own admission, is negotiated.
 
2008-12-28 05:52:33 PM  

nicksteel: Then why does the IPCC ignore water vapor? Which was my original question. Why the focus on less than .5% of the total greenhouse gases? All the greenhouse gases contribute to the change and man made CO2 is a very, very small percentage.


Let's start here instead: what contributes to the change in atmospheric water vapor?
 
2008-12-28 05:53:23 PM  

nicksteel: It was an example of how "based upon" can be stretched beyond reality. The IPCC report is, by your own admission, a political document. Live with it.


And what I've tried to point out that it is not only a political document, but a scientific one as well. In addition, it's the best estimation that exists. That's a fact and you should live with it as well.
 
2008-12-28 05:55:05 PM  

trofl: nicksteel: Then why does the IPCC ignore water vapor? Which was my original question. Why the focus on less than .5% of the total greenhouse gases? All the greenhouse gases contribute to the change and man made CO2 is a very, very small percentage.

Let's start here instead: what contributes to the change in atmospheric water vapor?


I understand that part, explain why you ignore it.
 
2008-12-28 05:56:14 PM  
nicksteel: what evidence do you have that the IPCC does not fairly represent the papers that it cites? We could all very well be citing the thousands of papers it cites rather than the summary it provides. What, exactly, is an example of where it incorrectly represents a cited paper? All of this talk about it being a political document does not make the report false or invalid.
 
2008-12-28 05:57:59 PM  

nicksteel: The final document, by your own admission, is negotiated.



Of course it is. Does that mean it's completely wrong? Does that mean it's completely without merit? Does that mean the IPCC reports are completely independent of the science on which it is based? The IPCC is, again, an imperfect process, but the best anybody has. Your argument would discount the IPCC reports without even looking at them. You would ignore them without even reading one word of it, if we went by your simplistic outlook. Negotiated does not automatically mean wrong.

Use some of those critical faculties and look at your own argument.
 
2008-12-28 05:58:29 PM  

trofl: nicksteel: what evidence do you have that the IPCC does not fairly represent the papers that it cites? We could all very well be citing the thousands of papers it cites rather than the summary it provides. What, exactly, is an example of where it incorrectly represents a cited paper? All of this talk about it being a political document does not make the report false or invalid.


What it makes the report is political, not scientific. Once you sit down and negotiate a report, it loses a certain amount of credibility.
 
2008-12-28 05:59:16 PM  

nicksteel: I understand that part, explain why you ignore it.


I don't think you do. Atmospheric water vapor concentrations are controlled by atmospheric temperatures. To change the temperature beyond its equilibrium requires a change in forcing. Water vapor cannot be a forcing. Increasing/decreasing CO2 is a forcing. So by changing CO2, we change temperature, and only then do we change water vapor.

Besides, who's ignoring it? All the papers I linked to show it being an important part of the radiation budget, and as such, is included in all climate models. Water vapor IS discussed in the IPCC.
 
2008-12-28 06:01:39 PM  

trofl: nicksteel: I understand that part, explain why you ignore it.

I don't think you do. Atmospheric water vapor concentrations are controlled by atmospheric temperatures. To change the temperature beyond its equilibrium requires a change in forcing. Water vapor cannot be a forcing. Increasing/decreasing CO2 is a forcing. So by changing CO2, we change temperature, and only then do we change water vapor.

Besides, who's ignoring it? All the papers I linked to show it being an important part of the radiation budget, and as such, is included in all climate models. Water vapor IS discussed in the IPCC.


Are you saying that the water vapor does not increase temperature??
 
2008-12-28 06:01:48 PM  

nicksteel: What it makes the report is political, not scientific. Once you sit down and negotiate a report, it loses a certain amount of credibility.


Where have the negotiations modified the document such that it does not agree with the papers it cites. If there's no evidence of such a problem, there should not be an automatic reduction in credibility.

Besides, I DO hold the individual scientific papers as more credible than the IPCC itself. But because the IPCC fairly represents these papers (there's no evidence otherwise), it is credible enough to point to as a good summary of these individual papers. There's no reason to believe otherwise.
 
2008-12-28 06:02:23 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: The final document, by your own admission, is negotiated.


Of course it is. Does that mean it's completely wrong? Does that mean it's completely without merit? Does that mean the IPCC reports are completely independent of the science on which it is based? The IPCC is, again, an imperfect process, but the best anybody has. Your argument would discount the IPCC reports without even looking at them. You would ignore them without even reading one word of it, if we went by your simplistic outlook. Negotiated does not automatically mean wrong.

Use some of those critical faculties and look at your own argument.


It means that the findings have been altered to appease people.
 
2008-12-28 06:04:26 PM  

nicksteel: What it makes the report is political, not scientific. Once you sit down and negotiate a report, it loses a certain amount of credibility.



Guess what. All reports are negotiated. Heck, scientific literature itself is usually written by more than one person and is negotiated between authors as well. You've set yourself up a rather unrealistic benchmark for credibility here.

And I'll point out one more time that negotiated does not automatically mean wrong, even though you seem to be moving away from that idea.
 
2008-12-28 06:05:14 PM  

nicksteel: Are you saying that the water vapor does not increase temperature??


I'm saying an increase in water vapor is needed to increase temperature. But in order to increase water vapor, you have to increase the temperature first. Water vapor does not magically increase. So, since water vapor cannot be the initial cause of a warming atmosphere, what is the initial cause of the warming?
 
2008-12-28 06:06:15 PM  

trofl: nicksteel: What it makes the report is political, not scientific. Once you sit down and negotiate a report, it loses a certain amount of credibility.

Where have the negotiations modified the document such that it does not agree with the papers it cites. If there's no evidence of such a problem, there should not be an automatic reduction in credibility.

Besides, I DO hold the individual scientific papers as more credible than the IPCC itself. But because the IPCC fairly represents these papers (there's no evidence otherwise), it is credible enough to point to as a good summary of these individual papers. There's no reason to believe otherwise.


I do not know where the negotiations modified the document, but I know that it was modified. I agree that scientific papers are more credible, but I do not like the UN shoving something down our collective throats and claiming that it is science.
 
2008-12-28 06:07:24 PM  

nicksteel: trofl: nicksteel: I understand that part, explain why you ignore it.

I don't think you do. Atmospheric water vapor concentrations are controlled by atmospheric temperatures. To change the temperature beyond its equilibrium requires a change in forcing. Water vapor cannot be a forcing. Increasing/decreasing CO2 is a forcing. So by changing CO2, we change temperature, and only then do we change water vapor.

Besides, who's ignoring it? All the papers I linked to show it being an important part of the radiation budget, and as such, is included in all climate models. Water vapor IS discussed in the IPCC.

Are you saying that the water vapor does not increase temperature??


Ever argue with a small child who believes that there is a monster in the closet, and no matter what you say or do you cannot dissuade the child of the notion that as soon as the light is turned off and the bedroom door is closed, the monster is going to emerge and eat him?

Did you ever think that you might be that child?
 
2008-12-28 06:07:58 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Guess what. All reports are negotiated. Heck, scientific literature itself is usually written by more than one person and is negotiated between authors as well. You've set yourself up a rather unrealistic benchmark for credibility here.

And I'll point out one more time that negotiated does not automatically mean wrong


Exactly, this. To publish anything, ever (except for maybe on the Internet where anything goes), you have to negotiate, implicitly or explicitly, with an editor and/or reviewers.
 
2008-12-28 06:09:20 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: What it makes the report is political, not scientific. Once you sit down and negotiate a report, it loses a certain amount of credibility.


Guess what. All reports are negotiated. Heck, scientific literature itself is usually written by more than one person and is negotiated between authors as well. You've set yourself up a rather unrealistic benchmark for credibility here.

And I'll point out one more time that negotiated does not automatically mean wrong, even though you seem to be moving away from that idea.


If two scientists sit down and negotiate, they are arguing from a scientific position. When somebody from the IPCC sits down with the rep from some government, it is from a political position. Negotiated, in the case of the IPCC, means that it has been changed to appease somebody. That change, or to be accurate, those changes, make the report less accurate.
 
2008-12-28 06:11:18 PM  

nicksteel: It means that the findings have been altered to appease people.


Some of the specific wording has been altered. As I stated before, this was to fit the consensus-driven nature of the IPCC process. All the countries involved agreed on the reports in the end. But to suggest that a complete 180 has been somehow done, that the opposite conclusion was somehow reached when again, every country involved agreed with it, and each statement is transparently cited - well, it's simply ridiculous, and veers into tin-foil-hat territory. One would have to have some sort of overwhelming evidence that shows a massive conspiracy by every country involved in the IPCC.
 
2008-12-28 06:14:13 PM  

TheFoy: nicksteel: trofl: nicksteel: I understand that part, explain why you ignore it.

I don't think you do. Atmospheric water vapor concentrations are controlled by atmospheric temperatures. To change the temperature beyond its equilibrium requires a change in forcing. Water vapor cannot be a forcing. Increasing/decreasing CO2 is a forcing. So by changing CO2, we change temperature, and only then do we change water vapor.

Besides, who's ignoring it? All the papers I linked to show it being an important part of the radiation budget, and as such, is included in all climate models. Water vapor IS discussed in the IPCC.

Are you saying that the water vapor does not increase temperature??

Ever argue with a small child who believes that there is a monster in the closet, and no matter what you say or do you cannot dissuade the child of the notion that as soon as the light is turned off and the bedroom door is closed, the monster is going to emerge and eat him?

Did you ever think that you might be that child?


In this case, there is a monster in the closet. It was created by a bunch of leftist tree huggers who want to make the rest of the world live the way that they want us to live.

Take carbon credits - it is okay to drive a gas guzzler all over town and across the country as long as you buy some carbon credits. That is a feel good solution that does nothing to solve the problem. If I pump all sorts of C02 into the air in my hummer, planting a tree next year (paid for with my carbon credits) it is a case of too little, too late.
 
2008-12-28 06:19:01 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: It means that the findings have been altered to appease people.

Some of the specific wording has been altered. As I stated before, this was to fit the consensus-driven nature of the IPCC process. All the countries involved agreed on the reports in the end. But to suggest that a complete 180 has been somehow done, that the opposite conclusion was somehow reached when again, every country involved agreed with it, and each statement is transparently cited - well, it's simply ridiculous, and veers into tin-foil-hat territory. One would have to have some sort of overwhelming evidence that shows a massive conspiracy by every country involved in the IPCC.


That is not how you get a document of this sort signed off. You are proposing that they sat down in one big group of nations and went over the report line by line. That is not how government works, they sent a copy to countries for comment and then addressed the people who had problems. They probably sent the revised report back to the original group, maybe not, for final review. I've seen that happen, most people don't look at the revised, final version.

This was not a minor change, this was not changing "happy" to "glad". People wanted the findings and the recommendations changed. That is serious.
 
2008-12-28 06:22:24 PM  

trofl: nicksteel: Are you saying that the water vapor does not increase temperature??

I'm saying an increase in water vapor is needed to increase temperature. But in order to increase water vapor, you have to increase the temperature first. Water vapor does not magically increase. So, since water vapor cannot be the initial cause of a warming atmosphere, what is the initial cause of the warming?


greenhouse gases change the temperature, more gases higher temperature. An increase in water vapor would increase the temperature.
 
2008-12-28 06:26:07 PM  

nicksteel: Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: What it makes the report is political, not scientific. Once you sit down and negotiate a report, it loses a certain amount of credibility.


Guess what. All reports are negotiated. Heck, scientific literature itself is usually written by more than one person and is negotiated between authors as well. You've set yourself up a rather unrealistic benchmark for credibility here.

And I'll point out one more time that negotiated does not automatically mean wrong, even though you seem to be moving away from that idea.

If two scientists sit down and negotiate, they are arguing from a scientific position. When somebody a scientist from the IPCC sits down with the rep from some government while looking at the scientific literature, it is from a political position. Negotiated, in the case of the IPCC, means that it has been changed to appease somebody. That change, or to be accurate, those changes, make the report less accurate.



FTFY. Again, you should really get over this simplistic black-or-white thinking. It's not just scientific or political. The IPCC reports are both. For chrissakes, Working Group III has as it's only focus how to mitigate ACC. It would be impossible for them to do their job if the IPCC was not meant to consider politics. I'm not sure where you got this idea that the IPCC was meant to be this completely apolitical entity.

As for the second part, believe it or not, you've been whittled down to an area where I think we agree more than we disagree. Scientific findings are negotiated through the vetting and writing process inherent in the IPCC, as we both agree on. But it is this process that lets the IPCC bring in so many people and so many countries on board in the first place. It's a double edge sword. While tending to moderate the final language the process gives it so much more weight because of the number and diversity of people and countries that have signed off on it.

And finally, you should look at what criteria you're using to judge how one decides what is "less accurate". There is a lively, ongoing discussion as to the particulars of the reports. That's a good thing. I don't think you're saying this, but you should be careful that if you're claiming the complete opposite of the basic findings of the reports, you need to be clear in exactly what evidence you are making that judgement by.
 
2008-12-28 06:26:11 PM  

Ambitwistor: Otto_E_Rodika:

So let's correct it to .4 degrees in 60 years, which is what the chart shows. That averages out to an increase of .006 per year. My god, what a crisis.

0.4 degrees is already large enough to have measurable impacts on ecosystems. But the existing change is not what people are worried about. It's the possibility of 2-5 more degrees of change over the next century.

Ah... the possibility. So, although the data doesn't support it, we'll just pull a figure out of our butt and then act on it. Why 2-5 degrees? Why not 20, or 30, or 50? Now we're really scaring people to buy a Prisis and subscribe to the orthodoxy of the Earth Mother.

This couldn't possibly be the result of natural events, could it?

No, not according to the evidence.

Evidence which again doesn't support that this is the result of man-made emmisions, is of too short a time period to be of scientifically relevant, and is being pumped up for political, not scientific, reasons.

Not a belief, just pointing out the science doesn't support the hysteria as preached by the Church of Green and Rev. Gore.

You haven't pointed out any such thing.

By the way, mentioning Al Gore is my litmus test to determine whether someone is serious about discussing the science, or is unable to distinguish between science and their personal rage against Al Gore. Clue: Al Gore's views on anything have nothing to do with the science.

Al Gore is the poster child of the new orthodoxy. His film, his Oscar, his Nobel, etc... were all part of the green revolution and "the debate is over" nonsense. I expect that we will see more of the same coming from the Obama administration. Once again, politics (show me Gore's science degree) is more important than knowledge.


And if indeed the earth is heating (or cooling, or climate changing) outside of the norm, we are looking at a very small slice of data when compared to billions of years of climate.

The climate billions of years ago is rather irrelevant to what the climate is doing today, and what's causing it.

Now you're just being silly. The geography of the earth was formed in large part by its climate. To suggest that the mountains, rivers, deserts, coastal regions, etc. that have formed over millions and billions of years of climate-based factors (wind, rain, snow, ice, heat and so on) have no affect on today's weather is just the kind of argument that we've come to expect... when the facts aren't with you, ignore them. The earth is constantly evolving, constantly changing, constantly morphing.

And then, we have to a)determine if this is man-made (unproven) and b)show that this will have a negative impact on the environment (also unproven).

Both are rather well established. See the IPCC Working Groups 1 and 2, respectively.

Ah, yes. See politically charged reports whose purpose is, in part, to punish industrialized free societies. Show me the money.


Seeing as how the earth's temperature has fluctuated wildly in the past, one can assume that it will continue to do so in the future.

Wow, you're a genius. We know climate has changed in the past. No, multi-degree changes in less than a century are not common.

Again, the data doesn't support this. No credible source has shown that the earth has gotten multi-degrees hotter or cooler in the past century. We are talking 10ths of a degree, but again, hysteria doesn't work when the numbers are small. So instead, we'll have more hurricanes (hasn't happened), the seas will rise 10 to 15 feet (yeah, right) and the polar ice caps will disappear in 5 years (where will Santa live?). Of course, when none of this comes to pass, we'll won't hear anything about how off all the predictions were. Instead, we'll get "See, we saved the world by using fluorescent light bulbs!".

 
2008-12-28 06:28:14 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: What it makes the report is political, not scientific. Once you sit down and negotiate a report, it loses a certain amount of credibility.


Guess what. All reports are negotiated. Heck, scientific literature itself is usually written by more than one person and is negotiated between authors as well. You've set yourself up a rather unrealistic benchmark for credibility here.

And I'll point out one more time that negotiated does not automatically mean wrong, even though you seem to be moving away from that idea.

If two scientists sit down and negotiate, they are arguing from a scientific position. When somebody a scientist from the IPCC sits down with the rep from some government while looking at the scientific literature, it is from a political position. Negotiated, in the case of the IPCC, means that it has been changed to appease somebody. That change, or to be accurate, those changes, make the report less accurate.


FTFY. Again, you should really get over this simplistic black-or-white thinking. It's not just scientific or political. The IPCC reports are both. For chrissakes, Working Group III has as it's only focus how to mitigate ACC. It would be impossible for them to do their job if the IPCC was not meant to consider politics. I'm not sure where you got this idea that the IPCC was meant to be this completely apolitical entity.

As for the second part, believe it or not, you've been whittled down to an area where I think we agree more than we disagree. Scientific findings are negotiated through the vetting and writing process inherent in the IPCC, as we both agree on. But it is this process that lets the IPCC bring in so many people and so many countries on board in the first place. It's a double edge sword. While tending to moderate the final language the process gives it so much more weight because of the number and diversity of people and countries that have signed off on it.

And finally, you should look at what criteria you're using to judge how one decides what is "less accurate". There is a lively, ongoing discussion as to the particulars of the reports. That's a good thing. I don't think you're saying this, but you should be careful that if you're claiming the complete opposite of the basic findings of the reports, you need to be clear in exactly what evidence you are making that judgement by.


I do not trust a negotiated report generated by the UN. I do not believe that we should spend billions of dollars to implement the changes they advise and I sure as hell do not believe that we should give money to other countries so they can implement those changes.
 
2008-12-28 06:29:22 PM  

nicksteel:
Take carbon credits - it is okay to drive a gas guzzler all over town and across the country as long as you buy some carbon credits. That is a feel good solution that does nothing to solve the problem. If I pump all sorts of C02 into the air in my hummer, planting a tree next year (paid for with my carbon credits) it is a case of too little, too late.


Hey, something we both agree on. That's why something more along the lines of a carbon tax is being considered for the general public, and cap-and-trade more for large industries. As for voluntary carbon mitigation programs, you really really need to take a critical look at the particulars of each program. I agree with you that many, if not most of them are more "feel good solution" than anything.
 
2008-12-28 06:32:19 PM  

nicksteel:
I do not trust a negotiated report generated by the UN. I do not believe that we should spend billions of dollars to implement the changes they advise and I sure as hell do not believe that we should give money to other countries so they can implement those changes.



That's fair. The latter is a hot topic nowadays. I think there's good arguments on both sides. The idea is not to blindly trust anyone. And yet, not to equally blindly reject their findings and arguments.
 
2008-12-28 06:33:53 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel:
Take carbon credits - it is okay to drive a gas guzzler all over town and across the country as long as you buy some carbon credits. That is a feel good solution that does nothing to solve the problem. If I pump all sorts of C02 into the air in my hummer, planting a tree next year (paid for with my carbon credits) it is a case of too little, too late.

Hey, something we both agree on. That's why something more along the lines of a carbon tax is being considered for the general public, and cap-and-trade more for large industries. As for voluntary carbon mitigation programs, you really really need to take a critical look at the particulars of each program. I agree with you that many, if not most of them are more "feel good solution" than anything.


feel good??? Take Al Gore. He has the biggest carbon foot print in Tennessee. He "offsets" this buy buying carbon credits from a company that he is the CEO of. He gets a "salary" from said company, so he is giving the money back to himself.

There are sites on the internet that sell carbon credits and they have admitted that they pocket the money.

The day that any government forces a carbon tax or makes me buy carbon credits is the day that I fire up the revolution.
 
2008-12-28 06:36:25 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel:
I do not trust a negotiated report generated by the UN. I do not believe that we should spend billions of dollars to implement the changes they advise and I sure as hell do not believe that we should give money to other countries so they can implement those changes.


That's fair. The latter is a hot topic nowadays. I think there's good arguments on both sides. The idea is not to blindly trust anyone. And yet, not to equally blindly reject their findings and arguments.


But blindly following is what the people here want us to do. They attack me when I refuse.
 
2008-12-28 06:38:11 PM  

nicksteel: trofl: By the author's method of determining global cooling, we've had a heck of a lot of it over the last 40 years:


Yet...

he was just referring to events this year. I agree that basing his decision solely on the weather over the past year is not correct, but he also mentions that several agencies and groups have reversed their earlier opinion on the subject.


and he is an idiot. the groups that are saying that global warming is not happening are either not scientists or scientists that do not deal with climate.

It was in the 60's today and in the 40's last year, OMG GLOBAL WARMING!!! Climate changes do not happen over the course of one year, they take many years to change.
 
2008-12-28 06:42:34 PM  

soj4life: nicksteel: trofl: By the author's method of determining global cooling, we've had a heck of a lot of it over the last 40 years:


Yet...

he was just referring to events this year. I agree that basing his decision solely on the weather over the past year is not correct, but he also mentions that several agencies and groups have reversed their earlier opinion on the subject.

and he is an idiot. the groups that are saying that global warming is not happening are either not scientists or scientists that do not deal with climate.

It was in the 60's today and in the 40's last year, OMG GLOBAL WARMING!!! Climate changes do not happen over the course of one year, they take many years to change.


and your point?? I already said that he was not correct for doing so.
 
2008-12-28 06:42:41 PM  
Otto_E_Rodika:

So, although the data doesn't support it, we'll just pull a figure out of our butt and then act on it.

The data does support it.

Why 2-5 degrees?

Because that's what you get when you calculate the strength of the greenhouse effect due to the projection amount of greenhouse gases we are likely to emit over the next century. The climate sensitivity to CO2 can be calculated both from physical principles and calibrated from historical data; both figures agree, and lead to the 2-5 C range. (The uncertainty in that range is due not just to the uncertainty in climate sensitivity, but also to the response rate of the system, as well as our projected emissions.)

Evidence which again doesn't support that this is the result of man-made emmisions,

The evidence strongly supports that this is the result of man-made emissions. I refer you again to the scientific literature; see the IPCC WG1 for references.

is of too short a time period to be of scientifically relevant

This too is wrong. Centennial-scale data is scientifically relevant to centennial-scale projection, and we have more data than that.

and is being pumped up for political, not scientific, reasons.

Once again demonstrating your inability to distinguish between politics and science.


Al Gore is the poster child of the new orthodoxy.

You're just proving my point: you're so emotionally wrapped up in your hatred of Al Gore that you can't just stick to the science.

Now you're just being silly. The geography of the earth was formed in large part by its climate. To suggest that the mountains, rivers, deserts, coastal regions, etc. that have formed over millions and billions of years of climate-based factors (wind, rain, snow, ice, heat and so on) have no affect on today's weather is just the kind of argument that we've come to expect...

I didn't say any such thing. I said that the CLIMATE of a billion years ago has very little to do with what the climate is doing today, or in determining what factors are currently changing that climate.

See politically charged reports whose purpose is, in part, to punish industrialized free societies.

The IPCC does not make policy recommendations. The IPCC only summarizes the existing scientific and academic literature. It's a giant bibliography. So basically you're saying that you're dismissing all the major scientific literature simply because the IPCC cited it.

Again, the data doesn't support this. No credible source has shown that the earth has gotten multi-degrees hotter or cooler in the past century.

Duh. I'm talking about the projected future change.

So instead, we'll have more hurricanes (hasn't happened),

That is not an established prediction. That's one of the areas which are still subject to serious controversy, unlike the projection of global temperatures.

the seas will rise 10 to 15 feet (yeah, right)

That won't happen in the next century. It could very well happen over the next thousand years under a business-as-usual CO2 emissions scenario.

and the polar ice caps will disappear in 5 years

The polar ice caps are not going to disappear in 5 years.
 
2008-12-28 06:45:33 PM  

Ambitwistor: Otto_E_Rodika:

So, although the data doesn't support it, we'll just pull a figure out of our butt and then act on it.

The data does support it.

Why 2-5 degrees?

Because that's what you get when you calculate the strength of the greenhouse effect due to the projection amount of greenhouse gases we are likely to emit over the next century. The climate sensitivity to CO2 can be calculated both from physical principles and calibrated from historical data; both figures agree, and lead to the 2-5 C range. (The uncertainty in that range is due not just to the uncertainty in climate sensitivity, but also to the response rate of the system, as well as our projected emissions.)

Evidence which again doesn't support that this is the result of man-made emmisions,

The evidence strongly supports that this is the result of man-made emissions. I refer you again to the scientific literature; see the IPCC WG1 for references.

is of too short a time period to be of scientifically relevant

This too is wrong. Centennial-scale data is scientifically relevant to centennial-scale projection, and we have more data than that.

and is being pumped up for political, not scientific, reasons.

Once again demonstrating your inability to distinguish between politics and science.


Al Gore is the poster child of the new orthodoxy.

You're just proving my point: you're so emotionally wrapped up in your hatred of Al Gore that you can't just stick to the science.

Now you're just being silly. The geography of the earth was formed in large part by its climate. To suggest that the mountains, rivers, deserts, coastal regions, etc. that have formed over millions and billions of years of climate-based factors (wind, rain, snow, ice, heat and so on) have no affect on today's weather is just the kind of argument that we've come to expect...

I didn't say any such thing. I said that the CLIMATE of a billion years ago has very little to do with what the climate is doing today, or in determining what factors are currently changing that climate.

See politically charged reports whose purpose is, in part, to punish industrialized free societies.

The IPCC does not make policy recommendations. The IPCC only summarizes the existing scientific and academic literature. It's a giant bibliography. So basically you're saying that you're dismissing all the major scientific literature simply because the IPCC cited it.

Again, the data doesn't support this. No credible source has shown that the earth has gotten multi-degrees hotter or cooler in the past century.

Duh. I'm talking about the projected future change.

So instead, we'll have more hurricanes (hasn't happened),

That is not an established prediction. That's one of the areas which are still subject to serious controversy, unlike the projection of global temperatures.

the seas will rise 10 to 15 feet (yeah, right)

That won't happen in the next century. It could very well happen over the next thousand years under a business-as-usual CO2 emissions scenario.

and the polar ice caps will disappear in 5 years

The polar ice caps are not going to disappear in 5 years.


The projections for the rest of this century are from the models that have been created and those models were supposedly pushed to extremes to reach the numbers given.
 
2008-12-28 06:48:52 PM  
Of course the UN's IPCC's report was slightly political, the I stands for Inter-governmental, and the N stands for Nations. But that doesn't mean the conclusions are incorrect.

I think the IPCC report reaffirmed my current global warming stance: that we are causing climate change through increased GHG emissions, but we are fairly uncertain as to how serious those changes due to human emissions will be. A lot of the report's conclusions start as "it is likely that...", in which they mean only >66% chance based off of their computer models, which have inherent errors built in. Without knowing much more about the specific modeling work involved, I think about some of the engineering basic modeling, where you are looking at +/- 25% as your range of error. So with only a 66% chance based off computer modeling that inherently has errors, I keep those conclusions in my mind, but largely take them with a grain of salt until their certainty is improved.

Fewer of the conclusions are "very likely" (>90%) or "high confidence" (8/10) or higher, but those are the ones I really believe for now. I certainly don't deny any of their other conclusions, but I think some people take them as gospel when in fact they are just "likely" or "more likely than not".

So basically no problem with the IPCC report, just with how people read it.
 
2008-12-28 06:55:28 PM  

Quel: Of course the UN's IPCC's report was slightly political, the I stands for Inter-governmental, and the N stands for Nations. But that doesn't mean the conclusions are incorrect.

I think the IPCC report reaffirmed my current global warming stance: that we are causing climate change through increased GHG emissions, but we are fairly uncertain as to how serious those changes due to human emissions will be. A lot of the report's conclusions start as "it is likely that...", in which they mean only >66% chance based off of their computer models, which have inherent errors built in. Without knowing much more about the specific modeling work involved, I think about some of the engineering basic modeling, where you are looking at +/- 25% as your range of error. So with only a 66% chance based off computer modeling that inherently has errors, I keep those conclusions in my mind, but largely take them with a grain of salt until their certainty is improved.

Fewer of the conclusions are "very likely" (>90%) or "high confidence" (8/10) or higher, but those are the ones I really believe for now. I certainly don't deny any of their other conclusions, but I think some people take them as gospel when in fact they are just "likely" or "more likely than not".

So basically no problem with the IPCC report, just with how people read it.


slightly political?? Is that like slightly pregnant??
 
2008-12-28 06:59:37 PM  
THIS THREAD HAS REACHED FULL RETARD
 
2008-12-28 06:59:43 PM  

nicksteel: Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: It means that the findings have been altered to appease people.

Some of the specific wording has been altered. As I stated before, this was to fit the consensus-driven nature of the IPCC process. All the countries involved agreed on the reports in the end. But to suggest that a complete 180 has been somehow done, that the opposite conclusion was somehow reached when again, every country involved agreed with it, and each statement is transparently cited - well, it's simply ridiculous, and veers into tin-foil-hat territory. One would have to have some sort of overwhelming evidence that shows a massive conspiracy by every country involved in the IPCC.

That is not how you get a document of this sort signed off. You are proposing that they sat down in one big group of nations and went over the report line by line. That is not how government works, they sent a copy to countries for comment and then addressed the people who had problems. They probably sent the revised report back to the original group, maybe not, for final review. I've seen that happen, most people don't look at the revised, final version.

This was not a minor change, this was not changing "happy" to "glad". People wanted the findings and the recommendations changed. That is serious.



I agree with you that people wanted some serious changes made. But again, that's a far cry from claiming the opposite of the basic findings of the reports. You're right as to the basics of some of the process. The drafts are sent out to the different governments, and each sends in comments. But you left out that the final draft is done in consultation with those same governments, and it is adopted line-by-line for the summaries, and page-by-page for the rest.

But be careful about claiming that the countries did somehow did not look at the revised final version. This is not a small-time affair here, but a well-established process, and the highest level at which these reports are made. These people do take their jobs seriously, and you can bet each word was argued over.

But your overall point is a good one. One does need to critically look at the IPCC process itself.
 
2008-12-28 06:59:44 PM  
Do you get something out of behaving like a complete dumbass on these threads nicksteel?
 
2008-12-28 07:04:19 PM  

nicksteel: Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel:
I do not trust a negotiated report generated by the UN. I do not believe that we should spend billions of dollars to implement the changes they advise and I sure as hell do not believe that we should give money to other countries so they can implement those changes.


That's fair. The latter is a hot topic nowadays. I think there's good arguments on both sides. The idea is not to blindly trust anyone. And yet, not to equally blindly reject their findings and arguments.

But blindly following is what the people here want us to do. They attack me when I refuse.



Don't mind the idiots, no matter what they say. But to be fair, your posting history in this very thread would indicate that you may have been tending towards an unreasoned rejection of the IPCC as a whole, as inaccurate as that may be.
 
2008-12-28 07:13:36 PM  
A world-wide economic downturn and astronomical oil prices for most of the year caused a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions and a corresponding drop in global temperatures.

2008 fits the overall model perfectly,
 
2008-12-28 07:27:37 PM  

CanisNoir: Ahh is this where all those fans of science decide to throw out the Scientific Method in favor of "consensus" to make themselves feel "special"?

Man, just look at everything that occurred to create the Dustbowl of the 30's and tell me that we can even start to predict and model this shait. Face it, Nature will change the climate far quicker and far most drastically than we will.

It's fine to want to be environmentally safe, you know, I'm all for green things and furry creatures; let's just put it in context and stop the breathless "OMG I'm Killing my MOTHER EARTH" ranting eh?


Uh... the Dustbowl was largely caused by humans because of the type of grasses that were planted which failed to anchor the soil.
 
2008-12-28 07:32:09 PM  
MacGabhain:

A world-wide economic downturn and astronomical oil prices for most of the year caused a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions and a corresponding drop in global temperatures.

No, the climate doesn't respond that quickly to changes in forcing. More importantly, you're mixing up a drop in emissions with a drop in concentrations. The amount of CO2 emitted this year may have been less than last year (although I don't know if that's actually true, given e.g. China's continued construction of coal plants), but it's still enough to raise the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
 
2008-12-28 07:36:02 PM  

citizen905: CanisNoir: Man, just look at everything that occurred to create the Dustbowl of the 30's and tell me that we can even start to predict and model this shait.

Um, the Dust Bowl was a man-made phenomenon, caused by erosion due to bad farming practices.

But please, don't let that stop your idiot wharrgarbl. It is entertaining.


D'oh. Beaten to the punch pretty thoroughly.
 
2008-12-28 07:40:27 PM  
I'm against pollution, but carbon credits and greenhouse gases seem a bit out there.

I wonder if this CO2 stuff is just a ploy for the rich guys to set up loud, annoying and scenery destroying windmills.

Where's the money for Fusion? That's the best solution!
 
2008-12-28 08:30:54 PM  

hahawinnipeg: I'm against pollution, but carbon credits and greenhouse gases seem a bit out there.



While carbon credits may not be an ideal solution (but they certainly won't hurt if they encourage businesses to adopt less poluting strategies!), I don't understand what you think is "out there" about the greenhouse gasses. We know what happens when carbon is concentrated in an atmosphere. Even the lunatic fringe deniers don't question the fact that some combinations of gasses are more permeable to UV light than others.


I wonder if this CO2 stuff is just a ploy for the rich guys to set up loud, annoying and scenery destroying windmills.


I've stood in wind farms and the only sound I heard while they were in operation was the wind itself. Whether they destroy scenery is a matter of opinion, but they don't seem markedly more ugly than a coal plant. Given the choice, I'd pick the windmills.


Where's the money for Fusion? That's the best solution!

That would be the best solution, if we could make it work. I agree that increased funding for cold fusion research is a great idea. But we also need to meet our energy needs while we are waiting for the breakthroughs in fusion. Wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric (where each is viable) seem like good ways to reduce our dependence on both foreign oil and polluting coal.

Once cold fusion is a reality, it's easier to take down a windmill than to clean up after a coal plant, wouldn't you agree?
 
2008-12-28 08:55:15 PM  
img71.imageshack.us
 
2008-12-28 09:10:45 PM  

nicksteel: why do you tree huggers always retreat to a discussion about evolution???


Because those who claim to be "skeptical" of AGW and ACC employ the exact same rhetorical tactics and argument styles as the creationists/cdesign proponetists.

Don't want to get lumped in with them in these debates? Stop acting like them.

nicksteel: Second, there is no "overwhelming majority of scientists" who believe in global warming.


Reality wants a word with you.
 
2008-12-28 09:22:39 PM  
Booker again? What a dumbshiat.
 
2008-12-28 09:33:19 PM  
Hey all you "man made global warming" morans.... you are aware that one, just one major volcanic eruption introduces more CO2 into
the atmosphere than the entirety of mankind has since the beginning of the industrial revolution?

OH, I forget, facts are not to be considered on Fark!

CO2 is not a poisonous gas, it's a natural product of the planet Earth.
 
2008-12-28 09:44:34 PM  
FredoLaredo:

Hey all you "man made global warming" morans.... you are aware that one, just one major volcanic eruption introduces more CO2 into the atmosphere than the entirety of mankind has since the beginning of the industrial revolution?

Yeah, all the geoscientists in the world have overlooked this obvious fact that you, Mr. Internet Expert, have cannily discovered. That's totally the more plausible theory.

Except that it's completely false. (Skip to the "Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities" section.) Mankind emits about 100 times more CO2 each year than do volcanoes.

Moran.
 
2008-12-28 09:53:59 PM  

FredoLaredo: ey all you "man made global warming" morans.... you are aware that one, just one major volcanic eruption introduces more CO2 into
the atmosphere than the entirety of mankind has since the beginning of the industrial revolution?


Humans out-emit volcanoes annually by a factor of 100-130[1][2].

OH, I forget, facts are not to be considered on Fark!

Let us know when you present some, as opposed to long-debunked talking points.

CO2 is not a poisonous gas, it's a natural product of the planet Earth.

The latter half of your statement isn't evidence for the former. Ask the villagers near Lake Nylos[3]. Besides, we're talking about its properties with regards to radiative forcing, not its status as a "poison".
 
2008-12-28 09:54:27 PM  
P.S. I have no idea why so-called "skeptics" always wander in with obviously false "facts" that can be refuted with a trivial Google search, and then have the arrogance to criticize others for not sticking to facts. I suspect it's the Dunning-Kruger effect. FredoLaredo, you might want to read up on it and readjust your opinion of your own competence.
 
2008-12-28 10:08:25 PM  

FredoLaredo: Hey all you "man made global warming" morans.... you are aware that one, just one major volcanic eruption introduces more CO2 into
the atmosphere than the entirety of mankind has since the beginning of the industrial revolution?


Reality wants a word with you as well.

FredoLaredo: CO2 is not a poisonous gas, it's a natural product of the planet Earth.


HCN is natural too. Why don't you go have a glass and leave the thread to people who know what they're talking about?
 
2008-12-28 10:09:22 PM  

Ambitwistor: Except that it's completely false.


Damn you *shakes fist*
 
2008-12-28 10:21:45 PM  
Otto E Rodika: (Graph)

Do you honestly not understand that very small variances in temperature make a big, big difference? A five degree increase in global temperature would irreparably change the atmosphere. Hope you can breathe hydrogen sulfide.
 
2008-12-28 10:47:44 PM  
Zamboro:

Are you referring to the Permian mass extinction, one theory of which is that global warming lead to an anoxic ocean which outgassed hydrogen sulfide? If so, that can't happen on a large scale today; there isn't nearly as much organic matter to decay, and there is more oxygen around. In more recent geologic history the Earth has been warmer than is projected for modern anthropogenic climate change, without similar anoxic effects.
 
2008-12-28 11:00:16 PM  
I'm remembering that bit from a conversation with my dad, I'll ask him about it later. It is nonetheless true that making small changes in global temperature out to be insignificant is plainly ignorant. Although, the damage we're doing to ocean life is probably the most threatening imo.
 
2008-12-28 11:09:10 PM  
Zamboro:

Yes, people make out "a few degrees of climate change" as nothing special, but 5 C of warming is the difference between an ice age and today. (I think maybe some people don't mentally translate C into F, and think it's smaller than it really is...) And you're right, ocean ecosystems are getting hit from all sides: climate change, ocean acidification, overfishing, pollution, etc.
 
2008-12-28 11:16:46 PM  
 
2008-12-28 11:19:12 PM  
Just came for the meltdown...


/leaving thread satisfied and glowing
 
2008-12-29 12:10:21 AM  
Can we just agree that polluting the earth is dumb, but perhaps it isn't causing the earth to overheat. It does cause illness, disease and death from exposure to toxic chemicals, but please don't dilute the truth about the very real dangers of pollution by coming up with some crazy global warming hoax.
 
2008-12-29 01:48:18 AM  
The stupid... it hurts!
 
2008-12-29 02:28:19 AM  
I really hope it's true.

I'm aching to punch out a hippie for being smug.
 
2008-12-29 03:17:33 AM  

tchamber: The author of that article has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. Protip: Learn the difference between "climate" and "weather".


Man is that excuse getting old and lame.
 
2008-12-29 07:14:21 AM  

CanisNoir: Man, just look at everything that occurred to create the Dustbowl of the 30's and tell me that we can even start to predict and model this shait. Face it, Nature will change the climate far quicker and far most drastically than we will.


My grandmother (born 1888 in Kansas) predicted the Dust Bowl before WWI. "I always told them, if you cut down the cottonwood trees you'll be sorry. They're the only thing protecting the land from the wind."
 
2008-12-29 09:03:46 AM  
thrgd456:

please don't dilute the truth about the very real dangers of pollution by coming up with some crazy global warming hoax

It's not a hoax. The greenhouse effect has been known for over 100 years. It's basic physics. Its effect on the climate been supported by decades of research.
 
2008-12-29 09:46:10 AM  
Pollution should be stopped, I know but the boogy man that is global warming isn't going to scary anyone but the stupid.
 
2008-12-29 09:49:15 AM  
Thisbymaster:

Glad to see you joining thrgd456 in uneducated trolling. Fark threads always need more of that.
 
2008-12-29 11:45:19 AM  

citizen905: CanisNoir: Man, just look at everything that occurred to create the Dustbowl of the 30's and tell me that we can even start to predict and model this shait.

Um, the Dust Bowl was a man-made phenomenon, caused by erosion due to bad farming practices.

But please, don't let that stop your idiot wharrgarbl. It is entertaining.


No. It wasn't, though it didn't help. Try reading, that might help you learn.
 
2008-12-29 11:53:02 AM  
Leftist politicians will need a new boogey man to scare its sheep into submission, with higher taxes, more regulation and control over your life.
 
2008-12-29 11:53:11 AM  

attackingpencil: Disproved by what scientists? Can you give me a link to an article in a peer-reviewed journal? I'd like to read it, so I can stay up to date on the subject.


Yet you believe Gore proved it. Idiot.
 
2008-12-29 01:08:30 PM  
Ahem.

upload.wikimedia.org

Argue with that.
 
2008-12-29 01:11:08 PM  

Hoopido: attackingpencil: Disproved by what scientists? Can you give me a link to an article in a peer-reviewed journal? I'd like to read it, so I can stay up to date on the subject.

Yet you believe Gore proved it. Idiot.


No, Gore made a PowerPoint that educated a bunch of people on it. The "proving" was done by real scientists, long before Gore came along.

/show something peer-reviewed that says that global warming is false.
//oh, wait, you can't because of the evil science conspiracy.
///damn scientists, trying to stop people from ruining the planet for monetary gain...
 
2008-12-29 02:20:28 PM  
members.shaw.ca

/a cooling trend in the last 6 years is hardly something to ignore
// more likely to due with delayed solar cycle 24
///Geophysicist
 
2008-12-29 02:33:44 PM  
Came here for the graphs and leaving slightly warmer due to all the co2 from holding my breath with anticipation.
 
2008-12-29 06:25:04 PM  

Phobos_: /a cooling trend in the last 6 years is hardly something to ignore


Of course it is, it's well within the period of natural climatic variability, which is why climate is defined over several decades (e.g. the classic 30 year period) - to remove the "noise" of weather[1][2].

// more likely to due with delayed solar cycle 24

ENSO has a more significant effect on global temperatures than solar irradiance changes due to Schwabe cycles[5][4].

///Geophysicist

I hope to god that's not true...
 
2008-12-29 07:02:34 PM  

Phobos_: /a cooling trend in the last 6 years is hardly something to ignore


You did see that your graph was starting to shoot upward at the end, right?
 
2008-12-29 09:32:22 PM  

attackingpencil: Al Gore isn't a scientist. I'm choosing to believe people with PhDs. Do you know how hard it is to get a PhD?


The people with the PhDs? Yes, well, they absolutely predicted that Global Cooling was the result of man made pollution that was going to create an ice age if we didn't "OMG ACT NOW TO STOP IT!!!!"

When it didn't happen and the trend in temperatures started going the other direction, the PhD's linked the rise in global temperatures to the same factors they had sworn for years were causing lower temperatures and once again "OMG ACT NOW TO STOP IT!!!!"

There are plenty of scientists who disagree with the notion of man made global warming. Aside from all of that, the Earth has gone through vast numbers of unusual periods of warmth that lasted decades or and periods of unusual cooling that also lasted decades. If you are going to smugly suggest that you "believe" the people with the science degrees then I'm going to have to smugly suggest that you believe ALL of them.
 
2008-12-29 09:54:09 PM  

randomjsa: Yes, well, they absolutely predicted that Global Cooling was the result of man made pollution that was going to create an ice age if we didn't "OMG ACT NOW TO STOP IT!!!!"

When it didn't happen and the trend in temperatures started going the other direction, the PhD's linked the rise in global temperatures to the same factors they had sworn for years were causing lower temperatures and once again "OMG ACT NOW TO STOP IT!!!!"


There was no scientific consensus on catastrophic global cooling/an imminent ice age. Nor was there even a consensus reported in the popular press. The majority of papers published during that time dealt with global warming.[1][2]

i34.tinypic.com

Stop lying.

There are plenty of scientists who disagree with the notion of man made global warming.

There are allegedly about the same number as disagree with evolution[3][4].

Unless they are publishing their findings in the primary literature, their opinions aren't exactly relevant. Care to cite some studies?

Aside from all of that, the Earth has gone through vast numbers of unusual periods of warmth that lasted decades or and periods of unusual cooling that also lasted decades.

There is no evidence of warming or cooling happening globally on the order of the projected warming, and it isn't exactly relevant to compare impacts of natural variability predating civilization to our current situation of massive coastal habitation and relatively detached agricultural centers which provide the bulk of the industrialized world's sustenance even if there were paleoclimatic parallels.
 
2008-12-29 09:54:48 PM  
randomjsa:

The people with the PhDs? Yes, well, they absolutely predicted that Global Cooling was the result of man made pollution that was going to create an ice age if we didn't "OMG ACT NOW TO STOP IT!!!!"

Wrong.

When it didn't happen and the trend in temperatures started going the other direction, the PhD's linked the rise in global temperatures to the same factors they had sworn for years were causing lower temperatures

Again, wrong. Greenhouse gases have been linked to warming for over a century. Before anthropogenic global warming, no one claimed GHGs were causing global cooling.

There are plenty of scientists who disagree with the notion of man made global warming.

Yet again, wrong, as is obvious if you ever bother to open a climate journal. Assuming you're talking about actual climate scientists, not random biologists and whatnot, and are using a meaningful interpretation of the word "plenty".

Aside from all of that, the Earth has gone through vast numbers of unusual periods of warmth that lasted decades or and periods of unusual cooling that also lasted decades.

The Earth has gone through periods of natural warming and cooling before, but that doesn't change the evidence that the recent warming is not natural.

If you are going to smugly suggest that you "believe" the people with the science degrees then I'm going to have to smugly suggest that you believe ALL of them.

I'm going to smugly suggest that you educate yourself, and use some basic common sense to boot. I can find people with science degrees who believe the Earth is 6000 years old, but that doesn't mean that they're representative of the scientific community or the weight of scientific knowledge.
 
Displayed 305 of 305 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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