FARK.com: (6768880) "Nowhere else in the world do you see a political debate about whether climate science is real, whether or not the climate is actually changing"

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.

		"Nowhere else in the world do you see a political debate about whether climate science is real, whether or not the climate is actually changing" (npr.org)		627
		More: Fail, United States, climatologies, American Electric Power, Durban, light trucks, climate

• • •

14820 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Nov 2011 at 12:11 PM | Favorite | share:

more» |

Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends!

shirt it!

Share this link:

URL:

http://fk.cm/go/6768880

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

627 Comments (+0 »)

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

Nina_Hartley's_Ass

2011-11-28 08:42:50 AM

American Exceptionalism!

/we're special!

BurnShrike

2011-11-28 08:44:53 AM

"Nowhere else in the world do you see a political debate about whether climate science is real, whether or not the climate is actually changing," Kennedy says. "That political climate makes it very difficult to move forward in a comprehensive way. And that is something we need to address in this country."

No kidding. We should've moved past this idiocy years ago and moved on to what to do about it.

American anti-intellectualism at its finest.

I'm sure this thread will lead to some incredibly enlightening conversation, like all Fark climate change threads.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat

2011-11-28 08:44:59 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: American Exceptionalism!

/we're special!

Special Olympics special.

imapirate

2011-11-28 08:48:10 AM

We really need to focus on what's important these days, like teaching children that Jesus rode a Velociraptor into Jerusalem.

ginandbacon

2011-11-28 08:48:15 AM

I really am going to miss sugar maples.

Andromeda

2011-11-28 08:54:00 AM

In hopes that one or two folks might be interested in learning something before this devolves into the typical Fark fare, might I introduce those unfamiliar to Skeptical Science (new window). In short, it's a website that explains all the scientific data against common global warming myth and what the science really says, complete with citations.

I will preemptively ask anyone who tells me global warming is a myth due to XYZ to head to that website and read the appropriate debunking first, but I'm not holding my breath.

Sybarite

2011-11-28 08:57:01 AM

There was a Gallup poll a few months ago showing that worldwide about 14% if people thought warming was the result of natural causes rather than human activity. That number in the United States was 47%.

BurnShrike

2011-11-28 09:08:38 AM

Andromeda: In hopes that one or two folks might be interested in learning something before this devolves into the typical Fark fare, might I introduce those unfamiliar to Skeptical Science (new window). In short, it's a website that explains all the scientific data against common global warming myth and what the science really says, complete with citations.

I will preemptively ask anyone who tells me global warming is a myth due to XYZ to head to that website and read the appropriate debunking first, but I'm not holding my breath.

Wow, that's a pretty good link. It seems to cover all the silly arguments denialists dredge up. I'm gonna keep that one handy.

And yeah, don't hold your breath. If there's one thing Fark denialists are good at, it's ignoring science and information (which is why they hold the position they do in the first place)

Mike_LowELL

2011-11-28 09:11:01 AM

It will be getting much, much colder during the next three months. How about we wait until that happens and come back to this "global warming" fraud?

ginandbacon

2011-11-28 09:15:24 AM

Mike_LowELL: It will be getting much, much colder during the next three months. How about we wait until that happens and come back to this "global warming" fraud?

Lollerz! Good one.

Demetrius

2011-11-28 09:17:14 AM

BurnShrike: "Nowhere else in the world do you see a political debate about whether climate science is real, whether or not the climate is actually changing," Kennedy says. "That political climate makes it very difficult to move forward in a comprehensive way. And that is something we need to address in this country."

No kidding. We should've moved past this idiocy years ago and moved on to what to do about it.

American anti-intellectualism at its finest.

I'm sure this thread will lead to some incredibly enlightening conversation, like all Fark climate change threads.

Intellectuals are stupid.

Andromeda

2011-11-28 09:17:15 AM

BurnShrike: Andromeda: In hopes that one or two folks might be interested in learning something before this devolves into the typical Fark fare, might I introduce those unfamiliar to Skeptical Science (new window). In short, it's a website that explains all the scientific data against common global warming myth and what the science really says, complete with citations.

I will preemptively ask anyone who tells me global warming is a myth due to XYZ to head to that website and read the appropriate debunking first, but I'm not holding my breath.

Wow, that's a pretty good link. It seems to cover all the silly arguments denialists dredge up. I'm gonna keep that one handy.

And yeah, don't hold your breath. If there's one thing Fark denialists are good at, it's ignoring science and information (which is why they hold the position they do in the first place)

Oh, I know, it's why I'm not going to keep an eye on this thread once the trolls show up.

As a scientist I suppose what always annoys me about this is there are lots of great arguments to be had out there where I'm interested in good dialogue, both in science and politics, but this just so utterly isn't one of them that it's a waste of time and effort.

FlashHarry

2011-11-28 09:21:39 AM

Mike_LowELL: It will be getting much, much colder during the next three months. How about we wait until that happens and come back to this "global warming" fraud?

i46.tinypic.com

BurnShrike

2011-11-28 09:24:39 AM

Andromeda: Oh, I know, it's why I'm not going to keep an eye on this thread once the trolls show up.

As a scientist I suppose what always annoys me about this is there are lots of great arguments to be had out there where I'm interested in good dialogue, both in science and politics, but this just so utterly isn't one of them that it's a waste of time and effort.

Yeah, me too. I love science for how things are always changing as we discover new evidence and we have to go back and revise our old beliefs. I also like that there are always several different ways to view things, which leads to interesting conversations.

But at this point, on this topic, the denialists are basically arguing that the world is flat. It's a waste of time discussing it with them.

FlashHarry

2011-11-28 09:25:21 AM

"of course, like every other man of intelligence and education, I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised."

-- woodrow wilson. 1922.

89 YEARS AGO

hillbillypharmacist

2011-11-28 09:30:07 AM

FlashHarry: - woodrow wilson. 1922.

He was the head of the Progressive movement, and was elected as a Democrat.

He also helped scientists take the government for a ride: by getting grants to study penicillin. Germ theory is just that- a theory.

Because People in power are Stupid

2011-11-28 09:32:52 AM

Andromeda

2011-11-28 09:37:01 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: Andromeda: In hopes that one or two folks might be interested in learning something before this devolves into the typical Fark fare, might I introduce those unfamiliar to Skeptical Science (new window). In short, it's a website that explains all the scientific data against common global warming myth and what the science really says, complete with citations.

I will preemptively ask anyone who tells me global warming is a myth due to XYZ to head to that website and read the appropriate debunking first, but I'm not holding my breath.

Wow that link is peer reviewed (new window) isn't it.

[img.photobucket.com image 502x336]

If you bothered to click on the links I mentioned regarding common global warming myths, yes it is. Or are scientists no longer to have a sense of humor at all with stupid little comics? I'll be sure to tell my colleagues to take them down off their office doors.

DjangoStonereaver

2011-11-28 09:46:32 AM

The USA gave up its lead in the world when the GOP stole the 2000 election. We then
became just another 3rd world banana republic.

sweetmelissa31

2011-11-28 09:46:32 AM

Sybarite: There was a Gallup poll a few months ago showing that worldwide about 14% if people thought warming was the result of natural causes rather than human activity. That number in the United States was 47%.

40% of Americans are creationists- assuming that all creationists deny global warming (a reasonable assumption, I think), the other 7% probably profit from some industry that contributes to global warming.

DarwiOdrade

2011-11-28 09:52:28 AM

Not destroying the climate may hurt the economy? Good to know our priorities are in order.

/beats head against wall

vpb

2011-11-28 09:55:50 AM

Andromeda

2011-11-28 09:57:30 AM

sweetmelissa31: Sybarite: There was a Gallup poll a few months ago showing that worldwide about 14% if people thought warming was the result of natural causes rather than human activity. That number in the United States was 47%.

40% of Americans are creationists- assuming that all creationists deny global warming (a reasonable assumption, I think), the other 7% probably profit from some industry that contributes to global warming.

Or just watch Fox News. My father is a brilliant engineer but is incredibly devout (I have no other word for it) in his global warming denial, and I've never figured out how that could be except ever since he's retired that's all my parents watch these days.

Mugato

2011-11-28 09:59:01 AM

It's only the vast majority of the scientific community against the much wiser politicians whose corporate masters fear environmentalism might hurt their bottom line. Now who are you going to believe?

But seriously folks, roughly half of the country is republican and 99% of those people are already used to voting against theirs and the country's best interests. So the huge number of people denying global warming should not be a surprise to anyone.

nekom

2011-11-28 10:02:48 AM

sweetmelissa31: 40% of Americans are creationists- assuming that all creationists deny global warming (a reasonable assumption, I think), the other 7% probably profit from some industry that contributes to global warming.

I profit from an industry that contributes to global warming in a roundabout way, and I'm fairly certain it's real.

/what? fark off, we're all whores.

Because People in power are Stupid

2011-11-28 10:02:52 AM

Andromeda: Because People in power are Stupid: Andromeda: In hopes that one or two folks might be interested in learning something before this devolves into the typical Fark fare, might I introduce those unfamiliar to Skeptical Science (new window). In short, it's a website that explains all the scientific data against common global warming myth and what the science really says, complete with citations.

I will preemptively ask anyone who tells me global warming is a myth due to XYZ to head to that website and read the appropriate debunking first, but I'm not holding my breath.

Wow that link is peer reviewed (new window) isn't it.

[img.photobucket.com image 502x336]

If you bothered to click on the links I mentioned regarding common global warming myths, yes it is. Or are scientists no longer to have a sense of humor at all with stupid little comics? I'll be sure to tell my colleagues to take them down off their office doors.

The website is peer reviewed? I was under the impression that articles are peer reviewed.

I may be inarticulate but my inarticulacy is overlooked in my profession -not yours. In other words, you were not clear in the statement that you were originally making. Just that everyone is supposed to click some link of your choosing and then argue about something -that again isn't clear.

Also the problem isn't about the science. It's a political problem.

meanjoegreentoons.files.wordpress.com

And cartoons -although are great to post on websites -are not appropriate for scientific discussions (although they are great for political discussions).

some.old.lady.

2011-11-28 10:05:57 AM

:: i am freeeeeeezing ::

:: wishing the globe here would warm up ::

:: brrrr :: "Hello, winter! j/k"

sweetmelissa31

2011-11-28 10:07:33 AM

nekom: I profit from an industry that contributes to global warming in a roundabout way, and I'm fairly certain it's real.

I think a lot of people believe it privately and deny it publicly, like politicians who pretend to be religious to get elected.

miss diminutive

2011-11-28 10:10:52 AM

This isn't climate change. It's simply a slight transcendental calefactive readjustment. Nothing to worry about.

tasteewheat

2011-11-28 10:18:36 AM

Is this where we totally ignore the fact that Mars is warming too, indicating our climate change may be caused by that giant nuclear reactor in the sky which accounts for 99% of the total mass in the solar system, not carbon?

Link (new window)

GAT_00

2011-11-28 10:21:22 AM

GAT_00

2011-11-28 10:25:14 AM

tasteewheat: Is this where we totally ignore the fact that Mars is warming too, indicating our climate change may be caused by that giant nuclear reactor in the sky which accounts for 99% of the total mass in the solar system, not carbon?

Link (new window)

Except there is no data indicating insolation is greatly increasing. Of course it is slowly increasing because that's how G-type stars work, but at a level that is not a major factor.

i575.photobucket.com

There's also the problem that due to the very low sunspot minimum we had recently, solar insolation is actually down.

hitchking

2011-11-28 10:25:32 AM

tasteewheat: Is this where we totally ignore the fact that Mars is warming too, indicating our climate change may be caused by that giant nuclear reactor in the sky which accounts for 99% of the total mass in the solar system, not carbon?

Link (new window)

Well, this might be a good time to take ol' Andromeda's link for a test-drive...

Hey, wouldn't you know it! They discuss your very argument (new window). Their conclusion?

The empirical evidence isn't conclusive on whether global warming is happening on Mars. However, to answer the question on whether the sun is causing Earth's global warming, there is plentiful data on solar activity and Earth's climate. Many papers have examined this data, concluding the correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.

So the argument that Martian warming disproves anthropogenic global warming fails on two points - there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming and Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations.

WTF Indeed

2011-11-28 10:25:54 AM

Climate Change is nothing but a heathen attempt to destroy the moral fabric of this country. Sure, the global temperature is getting warmer, sea ice is getting smaller, sea temperatures are rising along with the salinity, but this is all part of God's plan. This is his punishment for the sinful ways the people of the coasts of this great nation live. Repent now and ye shall be saved!

IgG4

2011-11-28 10:26:38 AM

I heard smoking doesn't cause cancer either...

Tigger

2011-11-28 10:30:55 AM

Is this where we totally ignore the fact that Mars is warming too,

There'll be a lot of ignoring, just probably not in the manner that you're thinking

Flab

2011-11-28 10:32:31 AM

vpb: Yes, sounds objective and balanced to me!

Like it or not, if most of the scientific data points in one direction, it is objective to report on the conclusions.

WTF Indeed

2011-11-28 10:33:24 AM

Sleeping Monkey

2011-11-28 10:38:26 AM

That's because no where else in the world do you have republicans.

Mr. Coffee Nerves

2011-11-28 10:51:39 AM

The earth is getting warmer because Giant Invisible Space Jesus is hugging the planet EXTRA hard to squeeze the sin out!

edmo

2011-11-28 11:20:33 AM

Beginning with evolution, many have decided that matters of science are merely matters of faith and opinion.

They don't "believe" in global warming.

"Science" like vaccination programs can be ignored because we choose to have faith in some crackpot celebrity expert instead.

Evidence for Earth being billions of years old can be safely ignored and dismissed as "theory" because one doesn't know what a theory is and really could care less anyway.

This indicates that many are not students of history either as they are unaware of the horrific impact of faith impeding science in history, impeding meaning taking a modern growing society and ushering into the Dark Ages we've all heard about but can't recall what that was exactly.

Perhaps there will be another Age of Enlightenment one day.

serial_crusher

2011-11-28 11:21:39 AM

I'm just skimming this list and already I've got like 3 Brits, 2 Russians, a Canadian, and an Australian. If I find an Asian and a black guy, we'll have enough to make a college recruiting brochure.

chimp_ninja

2011-11-28 11:21:40 AM

tasteewheat: Is this where we totally ignore the fact that Mars is warming too, indicating our climate change may be caused by that giant nuclear reactor in the sky which accounts for 99% of the total mass in the solar system, not carbon?

Let's pile on the stupid argument.

In recent decades, all solar trends point towards cooling, not warming. From Proceedings of the Royal Society A:
"Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures. ... Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

Followup paper showing that the results hold regardless of time lag.

The really interesting thing is that you seem to think that climate scientists never thought of measuring solar radiation, and that the best way to measure this is to measure the change in climate on an object a hundred million kilometers away, rather than, I don't know, using satellites.

science.nasa.gov

(Data courtesy of NASA, although now that I think of it, I'm sure you think that they obviously faked the moon landing.)

Somacandra

2011-11-28 11:26:51 AM

BurnShrike: No kidding. We should've moved past this idiocy years ago and moved on to what to do about it. American anti-intellectualism at its finest.

We did. If you look at Reagan and especially Bush 1 speeches, this topic was addressed and the science was not considered "controversial." Only later did we firmly dig a trench to the 19th century on this one. Climate Change Denial is a very recent phenomenon.

chimp_ninja

2011-11-28 11:35:28 AM

If people are curious what the published scientific evidence looks like, start with this review from the journal Science.

From it:
"The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

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."

serial_crusher: I'm just skimming this list and already I've got like 3 Brits, 2 Russians, a Canadian, and an Australian.

Wow. Ones of examples. I can find you one Nobel-Prize-winning biologist who believes in astrology and astral projection. I guess there's a "controversy" there, too.

In the meantime, if you ask experts "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?", 97+% say "yes". From that article in the journal Eos, with annotation added in red:

wotsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com

My favorite side note: The 'general public' bar is among the lowest on 'Not sure'. Dunning-Kruger, quantified for your enjoyment.

chimp_ninja

2011-11-28 11:39:16 AM

Somacandra: BurnShrike: No kidding. We should've moved past this idiocy years ago and moved on to what to do about it. American anti-intellectualism at its finest.

We did. If you look at Reagan and especially Bush 1 speeches, this topic was addressed and the science was not considered "controversial." Only later did we firmly dig a trench to the 19th century on this one. Climate Change Denial is a very recent phenomenon.

Reagan and Bush I's administrations also came up with cap-and-trade, and even mandated it for sulfur emissions. The Montreal Protocol was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1988 to effusive praise from Reagan, and it entered into force in 1989. We've fallen a lot in 20+ years.

mrshowrules

2011-11-28 11:40:38 AM

Andromeda: In hopes that one or two folks might be interested in learning something before this devolves into the typical Fark fare, might I introduce those unfamiliar to Skeptical Science (new window). In short, it's a website that explains all the scientific data against common global warming myth and what the science really says, complete with citations.

I will preemptively ask anyone who tells me global warming is a myth due to XYZ to head to that website and read the appropriate debunking first, but I'm not holding my breath.

In the past 5 years, I have seen an evolution of the debate on Fark. I've seen it gradually shift from the world isn't warming to it may be warming but it is not part of a natural cycle. That's progress. By 2016 we should be at ACC is real but not serious and by 2021 it will be at ACC is serious but nothing can/should be done about it and by so 2026 it will be a non-issue because the Starvation Wars and US invasion to Canada will have already been initiated.

mrshowrules

2011-11-28 11:42:34 AM

chimp_ninja: Somacandra: BurnShrike: No kidding. We should've moved past this idiocy years ago and moved on to what to do about it. American anti-intellectualism at its finest.

We did. If you look at Reagan and especially Bush 1 speeches, this topic was addressed and the science was not considered "controversial." Only later did we firmly dig a trench to the 19th century on this one. Climate Change Denial is a very recent phenomenon.

Reagan and Bush I's administrations also came up with cap-and-trade, and even mandated it for sulfur emissions. The Montreal Protocol was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1988 to effusive praise from Reagan, and it entered into force in 1989. We've fallen a lot in 20+ years.

Isn't the Montreal Protocol when you give a hundred-dollar bill to the DJ if you want a BJ in the Champagne Room.

Gulper Eel

2011-11-28 11:43:34 AM

It is possible to believe the scientists' conclusions, and also believe that the political solutions proposed are just the latest load of fine-sounding horseshiat from those who would like to accrue more power to themselves by establishing a lucrative environmental-industrial complex alongside our military-industrial, health-care-industrial and prison-industrial complexes.

xenophon10k

2011-11-28 11:55:06 AM

Displayed 50 of 627 comments