Climate change killed all the publishers?


/I hear they're like canaries.

Climate skeptics'

Do they not believe climate exists?

Car_Ramrod: Climate skeptics'

Do they not believe climate exists?

*snerk*

In America, results confirming the results of every piece of research done in the last 20 years...are posted on the politics page.

They fixed the cable?

Is it because Al Gore is fat?

GAT_00: Because it's nothing new and you don't get published for proving something that we already know was true?

Because Richard Muller is not a skeptic in the first place?

ib_thinkin: Paging Jon Snow...



It's friggin cold up here!

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, to find climate change going on here.

Well i am glad they did this.

I know this one - beacuse some guy on Fox put a copy of Al Snore's book in a snowbank, thus disproving the whole damn liberal plot.

If someone is stupid enough and ignorant enough to actually denounce scientific evidence by saying they don't "believe" it, then they're really not worth wasting of your time with.

You don't need to "believe" in gravity, or the rotation of the earth around the sun. It's scientifically proven.

I treat people who don't "believe" in global climate change or evolution the same way I treat a 5 year old kid. Not only not worth arguing with, but embarassing as hell to be SEEN arguing with.

/No YOU'RE a poo-face!

Rising sea levels flooded the press room?

You mean that self-described climate change skeptics are, in fact, deluded and/or intentionally charlatanic? My entire worldview is crumbling.

Paging Jon Snow

Wouldn't there be some OLD data someplace, such as what a "weather kook" in the 18th or 19th century might have recorded, that gives surface temperature in the same spot over a period of decades? I can just see an eccentric Englishman doing that, thereby creating numbers that we could compare to latter-day readings.

The Earth is the CENTER of the solar system!

/That's what the best minds believed for 1,500 years. Until Galileo started shooting off his damned mouth.

I for one would be fascinated to read a paper casting doubt on the existence of climate.

the thing that strikes me is that the evidence for it is just so good. of course, once this is known the game for the skeptics becomes one of simply creating confusion and doubt

jakomo002: If someone is stupid enough and ignorant enough to actually denounce scientific evidence by saying they don't "believe" it, then they're really not worth wasting of your time with.
You don't need to "believe" in gravity, or the rotation of the earth around the sun. It's scientifically proven.
I treat people who don't "believe" in global climate change or evolution the same way I treat a 5 year old kid. Not only not worth arguing with, but embarassing as hell to be SEEN arguing with.

Also, flat-earthers. It's round, you farking idiots, it's round! Take a trans-atlantic plane flight, see for yourselves!

I was going to write a confusing post about this and then decided I just wanted to summarize with:

Richard Muller is doing science. This is not shocking activity for a scientist. Now return to your regularly scheduled confusion.

But Watts still doesn't trust Berkeley Earth's results. And, based on the comments on his blog, most of his readers don't either. That suggests that, contrary to Muller's expectations, this won't be the end of the skepticism of the temperature record.

So he's the Jenny McCarthy of climate change.

"Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," said Richard Muller.

Well that's a silly comment, seeing as (1) you're promoting a project and usually advertising that it's really nothing different from what's out there isn't the best approach, and (2) it ignores one of the only interesting thing that you actually uncovered, which is the divergence of your data from the others' from around 1998 forward.

Oh, but that doesn't fit the message. Sorry. Carry on.

/And why the Fark are we discussing this pre-peer review? Why are they releasing their results and touting them? Isn't that part of the problem they were setting out to address, for Fark's sake?

someonelse: I for one would be fascinated to read a paper casting doubt on the existence of climate.

The documentary Star Wars. Each planet/moon has a singular ecosystem, with no variance around the whole world. Where's your climate now, biatches?

Huck And Molly Ziegler: Wouldn't there be some OLD data someplace, such as what a "weather kook" in the 18th or 19th century might have recorded, that gives surface temperature in the same spot over a period of decades? I can just see an eccentric Englishman doing that, thereby creating numbers that we could compare to latter-day readings.

Try the Wisconsinan glaciation, which began ending 10,000 years ago when the climate began warming up again. There used to be two miles of ice above Albany, NY. As the glaciers melted back, the water was released and the sea levels began to rise. Eventually, the Chesapeake Bay formed in what was the Susquehanna River Valley, which used to meet the Atlantic Ocean 75 miles east of Virginia Beach, when the continental shelf was the beach. We're in the middle of an interglacial warming period.

Also, humans didn't cause it. Why? Well, who was burning all the fossil fuels 10,000 years ago? Answer: Nobody.

/Hi, Molly.
//You don't remember me.

Oooooh... like, actual skeptics. People who found the methodology dubious and took investigative steps to clear up the doubtful elements. I initially assumed subby meant deniers, as in people that actually believe that climate change doesn't exist.

What I get for assuming, I suppose. Then, you don't get fairly routine studies clearing up minor scientific discrepancies posted to FARK very often.

Everything changes some time.

meh

whither_apophis: Rising sea levels flooded the press room?

You win the thread.

I reserve my judgment until Gary weighs in on the subject. Paging Dr. PDX....

let's say you've been telling everyone for x years that global warming is nonsense, just because you suddenly find out about google doesn't mean you should admit to being wrong and attempt to moderate your views to fit objective reality. oh no! because what you can do is put "global warming lies" [or whatevs[ into google and you're good to go again. all the time the kochs and their ilk keep funding hokey research and think tanks, keep buying off politicians and keep telling the sycophants and idiots to ignore objective reality, then the disinformation will continue to give ordinary people what they need to help them to deny objective reality to their friends, family, etc. thus, the process of changing society's perception (towards an acceptance of global warming) takes longer. the kochs et al will be dead before too long, the oil will run out before too long. these people's only interest is in making as much money as they can. they know they won't 'refute' man-made global warming. they simply want to prevent today's society from giving them the figurative ass-whooping they deserve. they know posterity will judge them as vile scum, of course - as the dust settles we'll begin to get an idea of just how much they have been briefed / or should have known wrt global warming - but they'll be dead. why they should continue to rape the planet when they have the money they already have is anybody's guess. i would say greed, they would probably try to argue that they are trying to further growth of some kind in the most ethical way that is realistically possible.

I forget, is Jon Snow a proponent of the climate change phenomenon or against it?

verbaltoxin: I forget, is Jon Snow a proponent of the climate change phenomenon or against it?

He is a bastard.

/And a knight of the Night Watch (or something).

Whatever happened to our climate troll with all the charts? Broadway or bentway or whatever the hell his name is? I miss that idiot.

Climate Science - Upsetting the Conservative Agenda Since 4004 B.C.™

HotIgneous Intruder: Huck And Molly Ziegler: Wouldn't there be some OLD data someplace, such as what a "weather kook" in the 18th or 19th century might have recorded, that gives surface temperature in the same spot over a period of decades? I can just see an eccentric Englishman doing that, thereby creating numbers that we could compare to latter-day readings.

Try the Wisconsinan glaciation, which began ending 10,000 years ago when the climate began warming up again. There used to be two miles of ice above Albany, NY. As the glaciers melted back, the water was released and the sea levels began to rise. Eventually, the Chesapeake Bay formed in what was the Susquehanna River Valley, which used to meet the Atlantic Ocean 75 miles east of Virginia Beach, when the continental shelf was the beach. We're in the middle of an interglacial warming period.

Also, humans didn't cause it. Why? Well, who was burning all the fossil fuels 10,000 years ago? Answer: Nobody.

/Hi, Molly.
//You don't remember me.

Right. And before humans were around there were still fires. Therefore all fires are not caused by humans. At least that's what I told my neighbor when his house burned down.

Garet Garrett: the divergence of your data from the others' from around 1998 forward.

Know how I know where your information comes from and why it's wrong?

HotIgneous Intruder: The Earth is the CENTER of the solar system!

/That's what the best minds believed for 1,500 years. Until Galileo started shooting off his damned mouth.

If the earth is flat how do we find the center???