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.

(Slate)   "When it comes to climate change, true skepticism is two-sided. One-sided skepticism is no skepticism at all"   (slate.com) divider line 250
    More: Hero, academic disciplines, Heartland Institute, job descriptions, Penn State University, climate change deniers, kindergartners  
•       •       •

4794 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Feb 2012 at 9:28 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



250 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-21 08:28:26 AM  
fta: Those opposed to climate change began accusing Mann of overlooking important data or even manipulating the records. None of the allegations were ever found to have substance. The hockey stick would eventually be confirmed by more than 10 other studies.

And yet even today the "debunking of the hockey stick graph" is now a given in conversation with people who've bought into the anti-science denial industry's obvious BS.

If I had a nickel for every time someone on the internet tried to explain how Mann was "thoroughly discredited" along with the graph I would put all those nickles into a burlap sack and swing it at the head of the next person who spewed such derp in my direction.
 
2012-02-21 08:33:03 AM  
People who have been convinced by the evidence do doubt. You won't find a single climate scientist who says the models are perfect. They can't be. They're too coarse to even model hurricanes.

But until you can disprove Doppler broadening, you can't disprove that the planet is warming. It is guaranteed by the science. More CO2 WILL trap more outgoing energy and warm the planet. The degree is what is still under debate.
 
2012-02-21 09:16:01 AM  
What does the most recent ExxonMobil study have to say about it, hmmmmmm??? That's what I'm going with.
 
2012-02-21 09:34:55 AM  

GAT_00: People who have been convinced by the evidence do doubt. You won't find a single climate scientist who says the models are perfect. They can't be. They're too coarse to even model hurricanes.

But until you can disprove Doppler broadening, you can't disprove that the planet is warming. It is guaranteed by the science. More CO2 WILL trap more outgoing energy and warm the planet. The degree is what is still under debate.


My favorite denier argument is when they start pulling out the different predictions of what climate change will do to the planet as proof that the scientific community isn't in agreement over the issue. It's a whole new level of stupid.
 
2012-02-21 09:35:05 AM  

GAT_00: People who have been convinced by the evidence do doubt. You won't find a single climate scientist who says the models are perfect. They can't be. They're too coarse to even model hurricanes.

But until you can disprove Doppler broadening, you can't disprove that the planet is warming. It is guaranteed by the science. More CO2 WILL trap more outgoing energy and warm the planet. The degree is what is still under debate.


CITATION NEEDED
 
2012-02-21 09:36:50 AM  
fta: Those opposed to climate change began accusing Mann of overlooking important data or even manipulating the records. None of the allegations were ever found to have substance. The hockey stick would eventually be confirmed by more than 10 other studies.

That was a poorly written sentence, though. I hope we're all opposed to climate change.

Even the people who deny it's happening.
 
2012-02-21 09:44:28 AM  

NetOwl: I hope we're all opposed to climate change.


Hear, hear. And we should all be opposed to tornadoes, asteroid impacts, Africanized honey bees, leafy spurge, and rogue waves.
 
2012-02-21 09:45:09 AM  
Those scientists say they want to help us. I say what they really want is to rule the world!
 
2012-02-21 09:47:03 AM  

canyoneer: Hear, hear. And we should all be opposed to tornadoes, asteroid impacts, Africanized honey bees, leafy spurge, and rogue waves.


The more I read on the politics tab, the more I'm rooting for the asteroids.


I noticed that I found this article on the Geek tab, but clicking on it sent me to Politics. That's just about a perfect metaphor for why we're all screwed.
 
2012-02-21 09:47:17 AM  

canyoneer: NetOwl: I hope we're all opposed to climate change.

Hear, hear. And we should all be opposed to tornadoes, asteroid impacts, Africanized honey bees, leafy spurge, and rogue waves.


Also Black PPL int he WHITE house, apparently

/runs and hides after dropping that.
 
2012-02-21 09:48:35 AM  

verbaltoxin: Those scientists say they want to help us. I say what they really want is to rule the world!


I rally don't see many reasons why that would be worse than letting politicians rule the world like they do now.
 
2012-02-21 09:48:46 AM  

canyoneer: NetOwl: I hope we're all opposed to climate change.

Hear, hear. And we should all be opposed to tornadoes, asteroid impacts, Africanized honey bees, leafy spurge, and rogue waves.


See also: When bad things happen to good people.
 
2012-02-21 09:50:43 AM  
Um, if you think there are only two "sides" to the science itself then you don't know enough to have a meaningful opinion either way. There are quite a few competing models and such, FYI.
 
2012-02-21 09:51:35 AM  

verbaltoxin: Those scientists say they want to help us. I say what they really want is to rule the world!


MIT was after me, you know. Wanted me to rule the world for them.
 
2012-02-21 09:52:05 AM  

canyoneer: NetOwl: I hope we're all opposed to climate change.

Hear, hear. And we should all be opposed to tornadoes, asteroid impacts, Africanized honey bees, leafy spurge, and rogue waves.


Actually I root for the asteroids. I like to root for a winner.
 
2012-02-21 09:53:25 AM  

NetOwl: fta: Those opposed to climate change began accusing Mann of overlooking important data or even manipulating the records. None of the allegations were ever found to have substance. The hockey stick would eventually be confirmed by more than 10 other studies.

That was a poorly written sentence, though. I hope we're all opposed to climate change.

Even the people who deny it's happening.


I seen farkers, apparently seriously, say that climate change would be good, because it would make all the non-usable land in the north farmable.
 
2012-02-21 09:54:32 AM  
I am a member of several skeptic groups.
And there is nothing funnier than skeptics who also deny global climate change or anthropogenic global climate change.

I am not a climate scientist, so I can only go by research I read on the subject and the overwhelming amount of real climate scientists that this is real and needs to be addressed.

But skeptics who are climate change deniers feel they are the only true skeptics. Never mind that like most people, denying it already fits in with their world view. (These skeptics tend to be libertarians as well)

If you think atheists are easy to troll ( and a lot of us are), troll climate change denying skeptics. It is quite entertaining.
 
2012-02-21 09:56:55 AM  
This is a case when Doubt helps a great deal. More so than in political economics, where a lack of doubt leads to regimes and dubious ideologies that march across continents killing millions before either faltering or being kicked to death by an amalgam of competing political economic theories.

That being said... We should stop supporting economic rent states and work to find cheap energy solutions that can be applied anywhere. This would end the financial backing of belligerents, extend power to the poorest, reduce harm from direct pollution of the environment, and possibly calm the global weather systems.
 
2012-02-21 10:02:52 AM  
did the author and this guy really just compare his work to the battlefield and the war in Afghanistan? I know there are benefits to making this guy into a hero who risks his life for our lives, but maybe the editor at salon could tell her to ease off the gas pedal a bit.
 
2012-02-21 10:02:54 AM  

Bessame: I am a member of several skeptic groups.
And there is nothing funnier than skeptics who also deny global climate change or anthropogenic global climate change.

I am not a climate scientist, so I can only go by research I read on the subject and the overwhelming amount of real climate scientists that this is real and needs to be addressed.

But skeptics who are climate change deniers feel they are the only true skeptics. Never mind that like most people, denying it already fits in with their world view. (These skeptics tend to be libertarians as well)

If you think atheists are easy to troll ( and a lot of us are), troll climate change denying skeptics. It is quite entertaining.


Here are some things I learned about libertarians just today:

- They don't know what the 16th amendment says
- They are still pissed about Woodrow Wilson Link (new window)

Being a den of climate change "skeptics" isn't new knowledge to me though. There is a certain trait among libertarians to be portrayed as the guys who "really know what's going on," and climate change is one more scary straw man they like to beat on along with the Federal Reserve, fiat currency, income tax, and that we actually dare to try and police the people gambling with securities on the stock market. (albeit somewhat poorly at times.).
 
2012-02-21 10:03:11 AM  

verbaltoxin: Those scientists say they want to help us. I say what they really want is to rule the world!


Everybody wants to rule the wold. I'll shed no tears for fears like that.
 
2012-02-21 10:04:32 AM  
In before somebody yells AAAAAAALLLLLLL GOOOOOOOORRRRRRRE!
 
2012-02-21 10:05:32 AM  
global warming is our only hope against the impending ice age.

why do hate the earth al gore?
 
2012-02-21 10:06:15 AM  
There have been several cold days this winter and lots of snow in places. In fact, the pond is frozen over and has been for some time. Sort of makes that hockey stick ironic, doesn't it? I'm going with that.
 
2012-02-21 10:06:47 AM  

canyoneer: Hear, hear. And we should all be opposed to tornadoes, asteroid impacts, Africanized honey bees, leafy spurge, and rogue waves.


I hope you commit suicide by drowning yourself in a barrel of petroleum. It would be poetic.

Jim_Callahan: Um, if you think there are only two "sides" to the science itself then you don't know enough to have a meaningful opinion either way. There are quite a few competing models and such, FYI.


Oh, please. Enlighten us, Texan.
 
2012-02-21 10:09:16 AM  
My problem with the skeptic/deniers is that they make my legitimate claims go unheard while they spout nonsense.

The real problem with climate change politics is not that the science is bad (it is not) but that the policies to prevent climate change are bad. Especially when it comes to geo-engineering. Trying to force the environment to behave a specific way through geo-engineering is more dangerous than climate change itself, because it attempts to cause unnatural changes even faster than anthropogenic climate change.
 
2012-02-21 10:11:25 AM  

satanorsanta: Especially when it comes to geo-engineering.


What nation is actively pursuing a policy of geo-engineering as a response to climate change?
 
2012-02-21 10:11:55 AM  

satanorsanta: My problem with the skeptic/deniers is that they make my legitimate claims go unheard while they spout nonsense.

The real problem with climate change politics is not that the science is bad (it is not) but that the policies to prevent climate change are bad. Especially when it comes to geo-engineering. Trying to force the environment to behave a specific way through geo-engineering is more dangerous than climate change itself, because it attempts to cause unnatural changes even faster than anthropogenic climate change.


I wouldn't worry so much about that. We can't even get tighter pollution controls without the Right claiming that it will end civilization.
 
2012-02-21 10:12:43 AM  
This is what happens when you politicize science. Both sides have taken a fanatical religious approach.

RON PAUL
 
2012-02-21 10:13:10 AM  

NetOwl: fta: Those opposed to climate change began accusing Mann of overlooking important data or even manipulating the records. None of the allegations were ever found to have substance. The hockey stick would eventually be confirmed by more than 10 other studies.

That was a poorly written sentence, though. I hope we're all opposed to climate change.

Even the people who deny it's happening.


It's obvious that the more we pollute, the worse we make our planet. What I will oppose, is a carbon tax that does nothing to help the earth's climate, and a constant push to tax underdeveloped nations at their most critical, while "first world" countries get to shrug off any similar demands.
 
2012-02-21 10:15:25 AM  

lordaction: This is what happens when you politicize science. Both sides have taken a fanatical religious approach.


Indeed. They are both bad.

RON PAUL

Absolutely. The answer simply must be a Republican. It only makes sense.
 
2012-02-21 10:16:00 AM  

GAT_00: People who have been convinced by the evidence do doubt. You won't find a single climate scientist who says the models are perfect. They can't be. They're too coarse to even model hurricanes.

But until you can disprove Doppler broadening, you can't disprove that the planet is warming. It is guaranteed by the science. More CO2 WILL trap more outgoing energy and warm the planet. The degree is what is still under debate.


Humans are doing X% of damage. If you look at the garbage littering the planet it's easy to make the jump that we are doing the same to the air.

The earth has been warming since the last ice age. The mountains around here have been carved by glaciers and I live in a very southern state.

Al Gore predicted (2004) that the US would be having multiple cat 5 hurricanes every year by now. Just hasn't happened.

If you believe that humans are a major cause then you are a doomsdayer. We add about 210,000 people to the planet every day. How much CO2 will 10,000,000,000 people create, cause that's where we are headed.
 
2012-02-21 10:20:27 AM  

chuckufarlie: GAT_00: People who have been convinced by the evidence do doubt. You won't find a single climate scientist who says the models are perfect. They can't be. They're too coarse to even model hurricanes.

But until you can disprove Doppler broadening, you can't disprove that the planet is warming. It is guaranteed by the science. More CO2 WILL trap more outgoing energy and warm the planet. The degree is what is still under debate.

CITATION NEEDED


Venus, biatches.
 
2012-02-21 10:21:54 AM  
Skepticism is great. Skepticism is grand. When it's informed skepticism. It fixes errors with new data and leads to understanding when new tests are derived.

Of course, none of that applies if you're just some idiot standing around shouting that global warming isn't real because it snowed last night. Then you're just some idiot standing around shouting and you should be laughed at for being so intentionally stupid.
 
2012-02-21 10:23:18 AM  

pxsteel: If you believe that humans are a major cause then you are a doomsdayer.


Or you aren't living with your head up your ass.
 
2012-02-21 10:23:29 AM  

chuckufarlie: GAT_00: People who have been convinced by the evidence do doubt. You won't find a single climate scientist who says the models are perfect. They can't be. They're too coarse to even model hurricanes.

But until you can disprove Doppler broadening, you can't disprove that the planet is warming. It is guaranteed by the science. More CO2 WILL trap more outgoing energy and warm the planet. The degree is what is still under debate.

CITATION NEEDED


Venus
 
2012-02-21 10:25:03 AM  

Smoking GNU: I rally don't see many reasons why that would be worse than letting politicians rule the world like they do now.


Do you know any scientists? Because I promise you that there are politics in science. If another scientist comes out with info even vaguely disproving an established scientist's prior findings, or criticizing their methods, there are those that will do their best to keep it from being published. Scientists are still human and there is a certain amount of arrogance involved.
 
2012-02-21 10:25:30 AM  

pxsteel: GAT_00: People who have been convinced by the evidence do doubt. You won't find a single climate scientist who says the models are perfect. They can't be. They're too coarse to even model hurricanes.

But until you can disprove Doppler broadening, you can't disprove that the planet is warming. It is guaranteed by the science. More CO2 WILL trap more outgoing energy and warm the planet. The degree is what is still under debate.

Humans are doing X% of damage. If you look at the garbage littering the planet it's easy to make the jump that we are doing the same to the air.

The earth has been warming since the last ice age. The mountains around here have been carved by glaciers and I live in a very southern state.

Al Gore predicted (2004) that the US would be having multiple cat 5 hurricanes every year by now. Just hasn't happened.

If you believe that humans are a major cause then you are a doomsdayer. We add about 210,000 people to the planet every day. How much CO2 will 10,000,000,000 people create, cause that's where we are headed.


If you are honestly confused go take a ecology class at your local university. At least pay for the notes from a class and ask someone to read them to you.
Instead of relying on what politicians and vapid fox news faces tell you about the science, learn about the science and about the experiments that have been done and what data they are collecting and how they feel it is valid.
 
2012-02-21 10:25:49 AM  

quatchi: fta: Those opposed to climate change began accusing Mann of overlooking important data or even manipulating the records. None of the allegations were ever found to have substance. The hockey stick would eventually be confirmed by more than 10 other studies.


Which of those studies were not done by Mann's cronies? Try comparing the names on Mann's hockey stick studies with those on the non-Mann studies.

Try actually looking at Mann's work sometime. He uses data upside down, omits data which goes the wrong way, and uses math which produces hockey sticks out of random data.
 
2012-02-21 10:26:48 AM  

satanorsanta: The real problem with climate change politics is not that the science is bad (it is not) but that the policies to prevent climate change are bad. Especially when it comes to geo-engineering. Trying to force the environment to behave a specific way through geo-engineering is more dangerous than climate change itself, because it attempts to cause unnatural changes even faster than anthropogenic climate change.


Oh, the science is very bad all right. Most of the "science" is based on flawed models. LexisNexis is rife with "news" stories about having to change the models to take something else new into account which was not taken into account before. And if the models can't even predict a hurricane or drought next year, then exactly why should we trust them to "predict" something 40 or 100 years down the pike?

But the thing that bugs me the most, the "science" that is never discussed by the alleged "experts" is the basic science taught to us many decades ago in elementary school. That being, quite simply, that plants take in CO2 and produce oxygen. All other things being equal more CO2 is very good for plants and makes them more abundant and healthier. In a time at which "scientists" are worried this planet cannot feed everyone on it, tell me again : why is having increased CO2 levels a BAD thing?

I am still trying to figure out why having more oxygen to breathe is a bad thing, too...
 
2012-02-21 10:28:15 AM  

WelldeadLink: Which of those studies were not done by Mann's cronies?


Yeah, it's obviously a huge conspiracy by the Climate Illuminati.
 
2012-02-21 10:28:20 AM  

pxsteel: GAT_00: People who have been convinced by the evidence do doubt. You won't find a single climate scientist who says the models are perfect. They can't be. They're too coarse to even model hurricanes.

But until you can disprove Doppler broadening, you can't disprove that the planet is warming. It is guaranteed by the science. More CO2 WILL trap more outgoing energy and warm the planet. The degree is what is still under debate.

Humans are doing X% of damage. If you look at the garbage littering the planet it's easy to make the jump that we are doing the same to the air.

The earth has been warming since the last ice age. The mountains around here have been carved by glaciers and I live in a very southern state.

Al Gore predicted (2004) that the US would be having multiple cat 5 hurricanes every year by now. Just hasn't happened.

If you believe that humans are a major cause then you are a doomsdayer. We add about 210,000 people to the planet every day. How much CO2 will 10,000,000,000 people create, cause that's where we are headed.


Also just so this doesn't go unnoticed, the earth has not been warming since the last ice age. Based on that sentence alone I would say you simply don't understand the theories behind global climates.
 
2012-02-21 10:28:52 AM  

pxsteel: Humans are doing X% of damage. If you look at the garbage littering the planet it's easy to make the jump that we are doing the same to the air.


Interesting recent study that was being reported on today:
static.thesocietypages.org
Apparently, hail and tornadoes occur much more frequently on weekdays than on weekends in the US. The hypothesis is small particles from vehicle exhausts during commutes cause it:
...moisture gathers around specks of pollutants, which leads to more cloud droplets. Computer models suggest these droplets get lofted up to higher, colder air, leading to more plentiful and larger hail.

Understanding how pollution can generate more tornadoes is a bit trickier. First, the large icy particles of hail that pollutants help seed possess less surface area than an equal mass of smaller "hydrometeors"-that is, particles of condensed water or ice.

As such, these large hydrometeors evaporate more slowly, and thus are not as likely to suck heat from the air. This makes it easier for warm air to help form a "supercell," the cloud type that usually produces tornadoes and large hail.
 
2012-02-21 10:29:59 AM  

1macgeek: satanorsanta: The real problem with climate change politics is not that the science is bad (it is not) but that the policies to prevent climate change are bad. Especially when it comes to geo-engineering. Trying to force the environment to behave a specific way through geo-engineering is more dangerous than climate change itself, because it attempts to cause unnatural changes even faster than anthropogenic climate change.

Oh, the science is very bad all right. Most of the "science" is based on flawed models. LexisNexis is rife with "news" stories about having to change the models to take something else new into account which was not taken into account before. And if the models can't even predict a hurricane or drought next year, then exactly why should we trust them to "predict" something 40 or 100 years down the pike?

But the thing that bugs me the most, the "science" that is never discussed by the alleged "experts" is the basic science taught to us many decades ago in elementary school. That being, quite simply, that plants take in CO2 and produce oxygen. All other things being equal more CO2 is very good for plants and makes them more abundant and healthier. In a time at which "scientists" are worried this planet cannot feed everyone on it, tell me again : why is having increased CO2 levels a BAD thing?

I am still trying to figure out why having more oxygen to breathe is a bad thing, too...


I repeat myself
Venus biatches.
 
2012-02-21 10:30:07 AM  

1macgeek: Oh, the science is very bad all right. Most of the "science" is based on flawed models. LexisNexis is rife with "news" stories about having to change the models to take something else new into account which was not taken into account before.


This is the same argument Creationists use against Evolution.
 
2012-02-21 10:33:56 AM  
These three charts that prove conclusively "climate change" is actually nothing more than Earth's ever-evolving sistinomic bladfrunce. Game over, people. Game over.

^--------^^ ^^^^-----------
---------^^^^^--- -----------^
----------^^^^
 
2012-02-21 10:34:49 AM  
I do love how the word skeptic has been co-opted by anyone who just doesn't agree with scientific consensus for ideological reasons.

Vaccine skeptics. Evolution skeptics. Climate change skeptics. HIV skeptics. Et cetera, et cetera...
 
2012-02-21 10:35:21 AM  

1macgeek: satanorsanta: The real problem with climate change politics is not that the science is bad (it is not) but that the policies to prevent climate change are bad. Especially when it comes to geo-engineering. Trying to force the environment to behave a specific way through geo-engineering is more dangerous than climate change itself, because it attempts to cause unnatural changes even faster than anthropogenic climate change.

Oh, the science is very bad all right. Most of the "science" is based on flawed models. LexisNexis is rife with "news" stories about having to change the models to take something else new into account which was not taken into account before. And if the models can't even predict a hurricane or drought next year, then exactly why should we trust them to "predict" something 40 or 100 years down the pike?

But the thing that bugs me the most, the "science" that is never discussed by the alleged "experts" is the basic science taught to us many decades ago in elementary school. That being, quite simply, that plants take in CO2 and produce oxygen. All other things being equal more CO2 is very good for plants and makes them more abundant and healthier. In a time at which "scientists" are worried this planet cannot feed everyone on it, tell me again : why is having increased CO2 levels a BAD thing?

I am still trying to figure out why having more oxygen to breathe is a bad thing, too...


Question: Who dresses you in the morning?
 
2012-02-21 10:35:37 AM  

James F. Campbell: Jim_Callahan: Um, if you think there are only two "sides" to the science itself then you don't know enough to have a meaningful opinion either way. There are quite a few competing models and such, FYI.

Oh, please. Enlighten us, Texan.


Um... OK. Here you Go.

Not really sure why you couldn't spend five damned seconds on Google yourself, but there's a summary of the most popular models/projection methods and the fundamentals of modeling respectively. Have fun, I guess.

//You realize that one of the US's major sources of climate data and modeling is _in_ Texas, yes? Or are you geographically illiterate as well as just scientifically?
 
2012-02-21 10:37:38 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Not really sure why you couldn't spend five damned seconds on Google yourself


I don't like you and am intentionally wasting your time.
 
Displayed 50 of 250 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report