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.

(Popular Science)   Global warming alarmists change some assumptions in their computer models and claim global warming twice as great as before. With bonus spiffy color graphs   (popsci.com) divider line 523
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

11058 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 May 2009 at 7:20 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



523 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-05-27 12:51:10 AM
baby_hewey: BTW, I read his footnote, it wasn't primary peer reviewed lit so I didn't accept it, are you saying it is ok to take in some info that does not come from peer reviewed primary sources?

You said "So where did you get those numbers? They sound like you pulled them out of your arse. Not like you have ever done that before. Why don't you try a little harder and post some links so I have something to cut and paste from to show your a lying bowl of dicks?"

See, on Fark, people can scroll up and read what you previously posted.

So, let's get this straight. You saw his linked footnote and read it. Then you decided a good line of attack would be to ask him where the numbers were from, even though you just read and understood the article. Then you'd accuse him of making up the numbers, even though you just read where he got them from. There you dared him to post some links, because you just read the link he posted. Then you accused him of lying while staring right at the data that he was citing.

Yeah, that makes sense.

baby_hewey: Oh well bed time, some of us arn't on the left coast.

Uh, yeah.
 
2009-05-27 12:55:27 AM
baby_hewey: chimp_ninja 2009-05-27 12:24:00 AM
See, if you read his post, you'll notice that the little bracketed "3" is in fact a link which goes to a NASA article covering the relevant forcing magnitudes with citations to primary studies.

This is called "a footnote", and is not an uncommon way to direct readers to further information on a topic. People who read books often encounter them.

Hey, remember when you claimed that you were a working government scientist who couldn't make his real views known on climate because you would likely be banished to Antarctica? That was awesome.

Hehe, yep, and it looks like there are some other Fark readers in my office. I don't fark at work anymore, it hurts too. BTW, I read his footnote, it wasn't primary peer reviewed lit so I didn't accept it, are you saying it is ok to take in some info that does not come from peer reviewed primary sources?

Damn it chimp_ninja I wish you would right down the rules to this debate so I can compete on a even footing with you who make the rules.

Oh well bed time, some of us arn't on the left coast.


Just play it like cockway and quietly recede into the shadows.
 
2009-05-27 12:59:12 AM
Wizzin: I predict lots of graphs, charts and name calling.

Whats amazing is that the south is back to the way it was 15 years ago with an actual spring *gasp* and a shiat load of rain to welcome the spring in, yet just by coincidence they decided to release a new study showing that global warming would cause cooling in the south some years. Seems they like to cover their buts.

I fully believe that warming may be occurring in populated areas, I dont think emissions have a lot to do with it, imagine that, wherever man spreads to and lays more concrete and cuts down trees the temperature goes up! The hell you say!
 
2009-05-27 01:00:48 AM
Well I read this whole thread. My conclusion is that we are screwed.

So we have the physical and biological sciences. Within each major discipline there are the big subfields. Just to take life science as an example, the big subfields include ecology, biochemistry, cell biology, molecular biology, etc. Picture each of these big subfields as a gemstone. A brilliant student will spend half their life becoming expert in just facet of a facet of this before being able to participate in research effectively. You can have a good overall understanding of physical and biological science, but to be effective as a scholarly peer within a research specialty, you have to spend your life working within a professional groove.

People misunderstand when other scientists refer to the consensus of climatologists and defer to their authority. People make an error to call people dupes or fanatics who believe the consensus scientific opinion that anthropogenic climate change is occurring but are unwilling to engage in a debate on Fark about sunspots or this or that dataset. If you understand how science works you understand that a high level of care is being taken by the specialists in the field. These people aren't hacks or charlatans or opportunists. They are scientists. I'm a person who can teach pretty much the entire undergraduate general sciences from memory and I know enough to know that before I have anything useful to add to the climate change debate I would need at least ten years of focused effort and a specific research task.

This whole discussion is ridiculous. People have no idea what scientists do for a living. Climate change is very likely to occur along the lines of the current consensus, and this will mean very drastic consequences for our children and grandchildren. If it is not real then there is no epistemological basis for science as a practice.
 
2009-05-27 01:01:58 AM
chimp_ninja 2009-05-27 12:51:10 AM
baby_hewey
: BTW, I read his footnote, it wasn't primary peer reviewed lit so I didn't accept it, are you saying it is ok to take in some info that does not come from peer reviewed primary sources?

You said "So where did you get those numbers? They sound like you pulled them out of your arse. Not like you have ever done that before. Why don't you try a little harder and post some links so I have something to cut and paste from to show your a lying bowl of dicks?"

See, on Fark, people can scroll up and read what you previously posted.

So, let's get this straight. You saw his linked footnote and read it. Then you decided a good line of attack would be to ask him where the numbers were from, even though you just read and understood the article. Then you'd accuse him of making up the numbers, even though you just read where he got them from. There you dared him to post some links, because you just read the link he posted. Then you accused him of lying while staring right at the data that he was citing.

Yeah, that makes sense.

baby_hewey: Oh well bed time, some of us arn't on the left coast.

Uh, yeah.


Ok, so I stayed up late because of you, feel better about yourself? As for my post where I asked where he got his numbers from I was mocking his use of non-peer reviewed works, I'm sorry you have a serious problem following the conversation.
 
2009-05-27 01:06:10 AM
baby_hewey: Ok, so I stayed up late because of you, feel better about yourself? As for my post where I asked where he got his numbers from I was mocking his use of non-peer reviewed works, I'm sorry you have a serious problem following the conversation.

No, you weren't mocking him. As is plain to any reader, you just farked up and aren't man enough to admit it. Shut your hole and slink off.

More specifically, you made a type of farkup that suggests you don't read scientific literature with any regularity-- Jon Snow's style is unusual for a web forum, but perfectly normal and familiar in that context.
 
2009-05-27 01:07:21 AM
groak 2009-05-27 01:00:48 AM
Well I read this whole thread. My conclusion is that we are screwed.

So we have the physical and biological sciences. Within each major discipline there are the big subfields. Just to take life science as an example, the big subfields include ecology, biochemistry, cell biology, molecular biology, etc. Picture each of these big subfields as a gemstone. A brilliant student will spend half their life becoming expert in just facet of a facet of this before being able to participate in research effectively. You can have a good overall understanding of physical and biological science, but to be effective as a scholarly peer within a research specialty, you have to spend your life working within a professional groove.

People misunderstand when other scientists refer to the consensus of climatologists and defer to their authority. People make an error to call people dupes or fanatics who believe the consensus scientific opinion that anthropogenic climate change is occurring but are unwilling to engage in a debate on Fark about sunspots or this or that dataset. If you understand how science works you understand that a high level of care is being taken by the specialists in the field. These people aren't hacks or charlatans or opportunists. They are scientists. I'm a person who can teach pretty much the entire undergraduate general sciences from memory and I know enough to know that before I have anything useful to add to the climate change debate I would need at least ten years of focused effort and a specific research task.

This whole discussion is ridiculous. People have no idea what scientists do for a living. Climate change is very likely to occur along the lines of the current consensus, and this will mean very drastic consequences for our children and grandchildren. If it is not real then there is no epistemological basis for science as a practice.


While I agree with your ideals, you are very wrong about the consensus. The only consesus is that climate change is happening, there are as many opinions as to why as there are sources of change or scientist for that matter. Try reading some of the disenting works to see where those scientist pick apart the AGW claims.
 
2009-05-27 01:10:10 AM
chimp_ninja 2009-05-27 01:06:10 AM
baby_hewey
: Ok, so I stayed up late because of you, feel better about yourself? As for my post where I asked where he got his numbers from I was mocking his use of non-peer reviewed works, I'm sorry you have a serious problem following the conversation.

No, you weren't mocking him. As is plain to any reader, you just farked up and aren't man enough to admit it. Shut your hole and slink off.

More specifically, you made a type of farkup that suggests you don't read scientific literature with any regularity-- Jon Snow's style is unusual for a web forum, but perfectly normal and familiar in that context.


Sweet, so don't address any of the issues I raise, just try to put me down and call names. It's all you have left, but I know you will defend your faith until the end. Good luck with that in 20 years when we have more data.
 
2009-05-27 01:12:42 AM
about 3 days after it was first reported, a headline on cnn quoted a WHO official declaring that swine flu was the greatest crisis that mankind has ever faced.

/yawn
 
2009-05-27 01:16:20 AM
In the grand scheme of things there isn't enough 'facts' for us to panic over (plenty of theory, not enough facts). I see way too much hypocracy from the people yelling the loudest. It's all do as I say and not as I do. Hard to take them seriously.

To me it looks like just a power grab by people who like to tell people how to live.

How about we just wait and see the 10 year running average of whatever the hell the number we are arguing about as the earths temperature goes above say 2 degrees from the hottest point this century. They'll still be plenty of time to herd people to the suicde booths.
 
2009-05-27 01:17:15 AM
smells_like_meat: about 3 days after it was first reported, a headline on cnn quoted a WHO official declaring that swine flu was the greatest crisis that mankind has ever faced.

It's the cholera of our time.

/unless something else is.
 
2009-05-27 01:24:25 AM
SVenus: smells_like_meat: about 3 days after it was first reported, a headline on cnn quoted a WHO official declaring that swine flu was the greatest crisis that mankind has ever faced.

It's the cholera hysteria of our time.

/unless something else is.


FTFY
 
2009-05-27 01:27:26 AM
smells_like_meat: It's the cholera hysteria of our time.

/unless something else is.

FTFY


Well, ythat too, but I was referring to this Fark Thread (new window)

/sometimes I'm obscure
 
2009-05-27 01:28:28 AM
Shut UP, Brockway, you wacko Martian deserter kawk!!
 
2009-05-27 01:42:22 AM
I don't even understand what the global warming deniers want. Even if we're wrong about man-caused global warming, what's so wrong with cutting down pollution, preserving the natural beauty of the planet, and using natural resources more efficiently?
 
2009-05-27 01:48:55 AM
Historically speaking, what do you all think is worse (done with honest, not manipulative intention)?

1. Over blowing a crisis or potential crisis.

or

2. Ignoring a potential crisis until shiat hits the fan (with the possibility that it never does)?


I think being a little too worried is generally better than being complacent. I don't think anyone here would apply the same careless approach if there was a large consensus that the gov't was going to repeal the 1st amendment. It's a bad analogy, but I'd rather be aware of this problem and come off overly worried than get caught with my pants down in 20 years.

I guess I don't understand the passionate hate (some) people have for the consensus position on climate change. No one gets this worked up over quantum mechanics. I guess debating the science is too hard.
 
2009-05-27 01:50:10 AM
Brockway: Dude, clear out the cobwebs first.

I lol'd. It is thick, isn't it? The guy who accepts NOTHING regarding any climate related science that may indicate warming, tells me to clear the cobwebs.

When you admit even once that you may be wrong, that other people may seriously believe what they believe (due to scientific data), and that thousands of scientists are not just making it up, THEN you have the right to tell someone else to clear the cobwebs.
 
2009-05-27 01:55:00 AM
The Bruce Dickinson: Personally, I think John Titor went back in time and photoshopped those old pictures just to f*ck with us...

Hey, anybody have photos of these glaciers from the previous 100 years? The previous 500 years? Were they that size from the beginning of time and just started melting the last 100 years? I mean, in those photos, are those the optimal size of those glaciers? Were they perfect in those photos? I mean, when they were the size in those photos, were people supposed to have collectively said, "Stop! these glaciers are PERFECT the way they are! A few years ago they were too damn big, but if they get any smaller than they are RIGHT NOW, it'll mean doom for us all!" My point is, let's assume you are right and "Global Warming" is man-made. Well, anything short of living in tents and tee-pees and telling the cows to stop farting isn't gonna do squat to stop it. No cap and trade, no Kyoto Treaty, and definitely no carbon-offsets (what a damn joke). So why the hell bother? It's not worth altering my lifestyle and doubling or tripling the cost of energy (you know, that stuff that's feeding your computer right now?) in order to maybe keep the temperature from climbing a degree in the next 100 years. Get a clue people. If the powers-that-be were truly concerned about the Earth, than they would insist China and India and other nations adhere to the same restrictions that they would have us suffer.
 
2009-05-27 02:07:40 AM
I think both sides have some serious people, more political people, and lots of screamers putting in their two bits worth.

What I do trust is man's ability to adapt, and that the truth will out - eventually.

I think we are affecting some climate change due to population growth, but I am not convinced (yet) that the climate impact from man is as powerful or more powerful than a dozen other factors which are all still only marginally understood.
 
2009-05-27 02:15:17 AM
Baryogenesis: I think being a little too worried is generally better than being complacent.

Chimp_Ninja has mentioned the Stern Report that was presented to the British Govt detailing some costs, but I don't think anyone in America is ready for the real cost of trying to decrease carbon dioxide emissions.

Worry? There's a cost issue now. Let's start by figuring out how to replace coal fired electric plants with plants that will run when it's dark and the wind isn't blowing.
 
2009-05-27 02:17:28 AM
Wow I forgot how many hits the denier trolls get.

Come on people you gotta realize no one could be that stupid and operate a keyboard...
 
2009-05-27 02:36:46 AM
If you believe in man-made global warming, then nuclear power is really the only way to significantly reduce emissions.
 
2009-05-27 02:43:33 AM
godofusa.com: CO2 is harmless.

CO2 makes trees grow...why do liberals hate trees so much?
 
2009-05-27 02:43:52 AM
Baryogenesis: What do you suppose will happen to the people that live downstream when 80-90% of the glacier ice that feeds a river melts off permanently?

Ummm, They'll move?
 
2009-05-27 02:49:26 AM
Dudes, SCIENCE says global warming is real. If you don't understand the science, you're not in any place to deny it.

It is a CONCENSUS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Deniers, please present credentials.
 
2009-05-27 02:52:44 AM
Wow. I left this thread hours ago. I return to find it has become a virtual cornucopia of reasoned discussion.
 
2009-05-27 03:23:40 AM
nuclear_asshat: If you believe in man-made global warming, then nuclear power is really the only way to significantly reduce emissions.

www.technovelgy.com

These idiots have no idea what the future holds for them Marty!
 
2009-05-27 03:24:17 AM
groak: This whole discussion is ridiculous. People have no idea what scientists do for a living.

They seem to decide what you can eat:

"Changing our lifestyles, including our diets, is going to be one of the crucial elements in cutting carbon emissions," said David Kennedy, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change.

Kennedy has stopped eating his favourite doner kebabs because they contain lamb.
May 24, 2009
Burping of the lambs blows roast off menu
(new window)
 
2009-05-27 04:30:10 AM
SVenus: groak: This whole discussion is ridiculous. People have no idea what scientists do for a living.

They seem to decide what you can eat:

"Changing our lifestyles, including our diets, is going to be one of the crucial elements in cutting carbon emissions," said David Kennedy, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change.

Kennedy has stopped eating his favourite doner kebabs because they contain lamb.
May 24, 2009
Burping of the lambs blows roast off menu (new window)


www.formaggiokitchen.com
They can have my SUV, but they'll have to pry my Weber out of my cold dead hands!
 
2009-05-27 07:26:37 AM
Somebody's got to post at least one South Park reference here...
waragainstirrationality.files.wordpress.com
/hot as two days before the day after tomorrow
 
2009-05-27 07:47:38 AM
SVenus 2009-05-27 02:15:17 AM
Baryogenesis
: I think being a little too worried is generally better than being complacent.

Chimp_Ninja has mentioned the Stern Report that was presented to the British Govt detailing some costs, but I don't think anyone in America is ready for the real cost of trying to decrease carbon dioxide emissions.

Worry? There's a cost issue now. Let's start by figuring out how to replace coal fired electric plants with plants that will run when it's dark and the wind isn't blowing.


You know we have a type of power plant that has low emmissions, works in all weather and has a proven track record when properly managed and maintained, but the same people that want to take away coal won't let any new Nuclear Power Plants be built.
 
2009-05-27 07:53:19 AM
XMark 2009-05-27 02:49:26 AM
Dudes, SCIENCE says global warming is real. If you don't understand the science, you're not in any place to deny it.

It is a CONCENSUS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Deniers, please present credentials.


I think that you need to rethink your argument if you are trying to use Wikipedia to support your side. Check out:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/ or their new site http://www.petitionproject.org/

They claim that over 9,000 PhD's have signed Over 400 of which work in fields related directly to Climate. Oh, and just to be in keeping with your link here is the Wiki on the lack of consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientif ic_assessment_of_global_warming

Hmmm, go figure. Your consesnus isn't what you think it is.
 
2009-05-27 07:58:05 AM
BlueJay206 2009-05-27 02:43:33 AM
godofusa.com
: CO2 is harmless.

CO2 makes trees grow...why do liberals hate trees so much?


According to JonSnow and chimp_ninja both of you must be retarded if you don't understand that it is unpossible that there could be any other explanation than humans are destroying our planet. It's like the councilman up in Rhode Island who claimed that the CO2 that comes out of cars is worse than the CO2 that people exhale. Sadly, that is the belief of most of the elected officials in this country.
 
2009-05-27 08:25:36 AM
SVenus: Chimp_Ninja has mentioned the Stern Report that was presented to the British Govt detailing some costs, but I don't think anyone in America is ready for the real cost of trying to decrease carbon dioxide emissions.

I'm not sure if you read it, but the major point is that theres are costs associated with either acting or not acting, and acting now to reduce emissions is very likely to be cheaper than doing nothing and dealing with the downstream consequences as they arrive.
 
2009-05-27 08:27:21 AM
baby_hewey: According to JonSnow and chimp_ninja both of you must be retarded if you don't understand that it is unpossible that there could be any other explanation than humans are destroying our planet. It's like the councilman up in Rhode Island who claimed that the CO2 that comes out of cars is worse than the CO2 that people exhale.

And this is why the Internets come pre-equipped with a web site called Breathing is Carbon-Neutral, asshole.

One is sustainable. One isn't.
 
2009-05-27 08:35:28 AM
baby_hewey: They claim that over 9,000 PhD's have signed Over 400 of which work in fields related directly to Climate. Oh, and just to be in keeping with your link here is the Wiki on the lack of consensus:

I can find you petitions by scientists who support Creationism as well. They also tend to be populated by fake names, people in unrelated fields, and misrepresentations of people's opinions, too-- but that's not even the important part. They're equally meaningless.

What I can't find you is a scientific article published in a reputable journal with evidence for Creationism. I can find you lots of goofy-ass websites sponsored by a host of organizations. But I simply can't crack open an issue of Science, Nature, PRL, etc. and show you some evidence for Creationism.

A scientific consensus is a consensus of evidence. In other words, you go to the primary literature, and you look at the facts. Guess what happens when you do this?
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

Source: Science
 
2009-05-27 08:42:43 AM
SVenus: Worry? There's a cost issue now. Let's start by figuring out how to replace coal fired electric plants with plants that will run when it's dark and the wind isn't blowing.

Why would you want a one-dimensional plan like that?

Most scientists recommend a blend of techniques-- fission, wind, solar/photovoltaics, geothermal, conservation/efficiency, tidal, biomass/biodiesel, etc.

Fission only looks cheap if you ignore a lot of subsidies at present, and it does come with some supply and waste issues that aren't trivial. It's also poorly suited to rural distribution, just as any centralized plant is-- the losses and infrastructure associated with running miles of power lines make it less appealing than local-scale solar/wind/geothermal with storage systems attached. It's certainly part of any large-scale solution in the short and medium terms, but it's very unlikely to solve the whole problem.
 
2009-05-27 08:45:53 AM
Parker1227: I think both sides have some serious people, more political people, and lots of screamers putting in their two bits worth.

Except one side has the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence, and the other side has a lot of FUD. You're committing the "Teach the Controversy!" logical fallacy here and equating political clout with scientific clout.

What I do trust is man's ability to adapt, and that the truth will out - eventually.

Some level of adaptation is virtually certain, but again-- adaptation is very likely to cost a lot more money than prevention. See the Stern Review for the thick-book version of why that is very likely.
 
2009-05-27 08:47:23 AM
Global Warming is not an imminent threat according to a greatest Scientist.

Manking faces Extinction in 4 years if we lose the Honey Bees according to Albert Einstein.

Source (new window)

Save the Honey Bees!!!!
 
2009-05-27 08:48:15 AM
smells_like_meat: about 3 days after it was first reported, a headline on cnn quoted a WHO official declaring that swine flu was the greatest crisis that mankind has ever faced.

(Citation needed.)
 
2009-05-27 08:49:01 AM
Citing Albert Einstein's saying to the effect that mankind would become extinct four years after honey bees disappeared from the face of the earth, Haim Efrat, head of the Beekeeping Division, said he'd rather sound the alarm than be complacent. "I don't mind if I turn out to be wrong and I say it clearly: We have Colony Collapse Disorder here in Israel. Though we are not even close to the problem they face in the US and Canada, tomorrow morning we could wake up to a severe case of the phenomenon."
 
2009-05-27 08:58:33 AM
nfw: If their model is so great, why can't they predict the temperature next week?

I know you're probably being sarcastic, but since there are people that seriously make this argument I'm gonna take a swing at it.

Large-scale systems are often easier to predict than small-scale ones. This is typically because boundary conditions are easier to set and complicated small-scale interactions can be averaged into a continuum model if you take your relsolution back a notch. I know that last bit might have made no goddamned sense to half of the internet, so here's some analogies:

Consider a reactor. It's got stuff flowing in at one end, it's being stirred by some blades, it's got stuff coming out the other end. Now, if I look at, say, a cubic cenimeter of this reactor (let's say it's industrial-sized, so a few cubic meters total) it's going to be next to impossible to know even the composition: it depends on the rather complicated flow pattern and all the concentrations around that cubic cenimeter (and the concentrations around are affected by the stirring pattern and the stuff around them, etc). However, if I take a step back and look at the whole reactor, I see that I can assume overall that everything in the reaction chamber is mixing pretty much evenly, and even though this isn't true it's close enough in this context that it works. So a problem that would require a few 1,000,000 coupled differential equations were I to do it centimeter by centimeter can be done with a single kinetic equation and addition/multiplication for the overall system. And it's fine, this is literally how we have designed certain reactor types for the last century. The "climate" can be easily predicted without being able to tell you the "weather" at a given point.

Or, for another example, say you're tossing a ball in the air and want to map its trajectory. Do you use quantum mechanics to describe its behavior, accounting for lattice vibrations and wave interactions and such? No, because that would be an extreme waste of effort. We find that for large masses quantum physics collapses into dp/dt = g*m1*m2/d^2. Simple differential equation. Easily understood for the large system, again, without knowing the state at an individual electron in your baseball.

There are issues with this approach when you want details and whether climate has this scaling simplification characteristic is certainly open to (limited) debate, but the idea that you need to understand every component part of something to comprehend the whole is counter to our experience in every way. Just because I don't know how much vapour the fuel injectors are inputting each cycle doesn't mean I can't understand that a car is about to run me over.
 
2009-05-27 09:08:34 AM
The same goldfish trolls, repeating the same comments, being proven wrong by the same Science heads.
It's like arguing with an Alzheimers patient
www.funny-magazines.com
 
2009-05-27 09:17:28 AM
baby_hewey

The Oregon petition is idiotic bullshiat.

The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names. (new window)

What do REAL, published climatologists think of this idiocy? They found the rehash so laughably moronic, that they just make a wiki to point out the problems and idiocies.

Here is the wiki for it. (new window)

Now, go away Baby_hewey, I think people have smacked you around enough. I'd hate to get hauled off for picking on people with "special needs".

Anyone that wants to check into basic information on climate change, good places to start are royalsociety.org, NOAA.gov, NASA.gov, IPCC.ch, realclimate.org (run by published climatologists, includes citations to the publications under discussion), and here is a good general information page. (new window)
 
2009-05-27 09:23:59 AM
Marcus Aurelius: I take comfort knowing that the really good seashore properties are in the heands of the wealthiest individuals who will scream the loudest the moment the sea rises up to cover them.

But we'll probably bail them out when the time comes.


If only there was some millenia-old earthen technology we could employ to manage rising sea levels, we wouldn't have to eviscerate our economy in a futile attempt to try to turn back the clock.

img198.imagevenue.com
 
2009-05-27 09:24:07 AM
Jim_Callahan: I know you're probably being sarcastic, but since there are people that seriously make this argument I'm gonna take a swing at it.

Nice post!

I also use gambling as an accessible analogy-- I can tell you with a high degree of accuracy what will happen if you go to a casino and play 100,000 games of roulette, but I have no idea if you'll win the very next game.
 
2009-05-27 09:26:18 AM
chimp_ninja: I'm not sure if you read it, but the major point is that theres are costs associated with either acting or not acting, and acting now to reduce emissions is very likely to be cheaper than doing nothing and dealing with the downstream consequences as they arrive.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but the MIT report didn't seem to take into the possibility that, without action, the earth might continue to warm at it's current rate (that it's been doing for the last 100 years). I didn't get that far into reading the Stern Report, but I'll assume for the sake of discussion that they didn't either. Why isn't the present trend even considered as even an outlier?

I think I know why. Because the biggest threat to the world's population would then be... the world's population.
 
2009-05-27 09:27:55 AM
serial_crusher: upload.wikimedia.org

This graph brought to you by

images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2009-05-27 09:33:38 AM
chimp_ninja: Most scientists recommend a blend of techniques-- fission, wind, solar/photovoltaics, geothermal, conservation/efficiency, tidal, biomass/biodiesel, etc.

So, basically, there's no distinct plan by anyone with the money to accomplish this. Just a lot of pie charts and one hell of a taxation scheme.
 
2009-05-27 09:48:29 AM
chimp_ninja 2009-05-27 08:35:28 AM
baby_hewey: They claim that over 9,000 PhD's have signed Over 400 of which work in fields related directly to Climate. Oh, and just to be in keeping with your link here is the Wiki on the lack of consensus:

I can find you petitions by scientists who support Creationism as well. They also tend to be populated by fake names, people in unrelated fields, and misrepresentations of people's opinions, too-- but that's not even the important part. They're equally meaningless.

What I can't find you is a scientific article published in a reputable journal with evidence for Creationism. I can find you lots of goofy-ass websites sponsored by a host of organizations. But I simply can't crack open an issue of Science, Nature, PRL, etc. and show you some evidence for Creationism.

A scientific consensus is a consensus of evidence. In other words, you go to the primary literature, and you look at the facts. Guess what happens when you do this?

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

Source: Science


So wait, you are wanting to argue that because some people have a faith in god and belive in creationism, then all my arguments are invalid? WTF? I mean seriously, the only thing you are doing with this post is compairing religions, Creationism with Global Warmism. But please, by all means continue.
 
Displayed 50 of 523 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report