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.

(Yahoo)   The fact that global warming is "an unproven theory pushed by tree-huggers" hasn't stopped the five nations bordering the Arctic from preparing their militaries to seize the Northwest Passage the moment it thaws   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 39
    More: Scary, ice caps, Naval War College, highest mountains, aircraft crashed, C-130, political debates, shipping lanes, countries by natural gas proven reserves  
•       •       •

11202 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Apr 2012 at 10:03 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-04-16 10:07:33 AM
10 votes:
That's because military planners aren't as stupid as climate change deniers. Military planners have to work in the bounds of what we call "reality".
2012-04-16 10:00:43 AM
5 votes:
This isn't new. The noted liberal tree-hugging hippies who write the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review (new window; PDF) devoted 5 pages to the links between climate change, energy policy, and national security. That's a 105-page document where they decided that, say, counter-WMD activities could be covered in 3.

"The Department is increasing its use of renewable energy supplies and reducing energy demand
to improve operational effectiveness, reduce greenhouse gas emissions in support of U.S. climate
change initiatives, and protect the Department from energy price fluctuations."
2012-04-16 10:07:26 AM
4 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: Airplanes, you morons. Look into them.


You've never tried to fly a tanker of crude oil, I'm assuming.
2012-04-16 10:35:47 AM
3 votes:

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Yellow Beard: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: duffblue: Are we talking Manhattan under two feet of water? I have only heard that we will lose coastal towns, but I highly doubt that they would just let NYC sink.

Depends. NYC might lose the edge of Manhattan with a 1 ft. increase in the sea level, but South Florida could be wiped out entirely.

you say that like it's a bad thing

Well, I'd feel bad for the alligators.


Lower Manhattan flooding would make Katrina look like a thunderstorm. Link (new window)

Note that Manhattan has a million people per square mile living and working there. If it floods, subways, sewers, power conduits will be the first to go tits up, and most of the highrise buildings have their power substations in the basements and pumps running 24x7 to keep the groundwater out, so the entire city effectively shuts down because it becomes uninhabitable. Oh, then all of those people who live and work there will have to relocate somewhere else until things are brought back online, causing massive and prolonged disruption to business.

You may say "Well that sounds like city people problems." Considering that small island is one of the largest economic powerhouses on Earth, the economic ripple effects will be felt even to Rancher Bob out in cow country.

So yeah.
2012-04-16 10:18:04 AM
3 votes:
At least when the Northwest passage clears, the straits of Hormuz and the Suez and all those little bigoted countries will lose a lot of importance. And money.

It's a much shorter trip around the world via the Northwest passage.

And let's have a moment of silence for plucky little Panama.
2012-04-16 12:21:39 PM
2 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: A consensus exists! I remember most doctors and scientists said that smoking was okay for you.


Another interesting example that says something interesting, just about the opposite of what the troll was going for.

Meet Fred Singer. One of his jobs used to be lobbying on behalf of the tobacco companies that secondhand cigarette smoke was not a hazard to human health. Not in the 1960s, mind you, but as recently as 2006. He cashed the checks from Philip Morris and said whatever they wanted him to say, hiding behind the mantle of being a (retired) scientist without relevant expertise. Before that he argued that CFCs had no impact on the ozone layer. He also argued that sun exposure wasn't linked to melanoma, all in order to further buttress his stance on ozone-depleting chemicals. He lobbied the Reagan administration to prevent regulations that ultimately reduced acid rain. (You know, cap and trade, back when it was a popular, effective Republican idea for controlling pollution.)

You know what he's doing these days? Giving talks about how all the climate scientists are wrong and only he can show that climate is not influenced by human activities.

Not only are you being lied to, but you're being lied to by literally the same guy, and you're still willing to carry water for him. It's just sad.
2012-04-16 11:47:29 AM
2 votes:
You dumb stupid libs who claim smoking causes cancer can't explain how smoking only goes back a couple of hundred years, but people still got cancer before that. Herp-dee-derp.

Dumb, stupid libs.
2012-04-16 10:25:29 AM
2 votes:
There ought to be a Troll moratorium for the first few pages of commentary.
2012-04-16 10:21:54 AM
2 votes:

jehovahs witness protection: Let's ignore the fact that many of the planet's glaciers are GROWING.
Climate has changed on the third rock from the Sun for many millennium without being affected by humans.


i25.photobucket.com
2012-04-16 10:17:22 AM
2 votes:

jehovahs witness protection: Let's ignore the fact that many of the planet's glaciers are GROWING.
Climate has changed on the third rock from the Sun for many millennium without being affected by humans.


Surely you have evidence of this?

Surely you have considered that 97% of climate scientists have considered your view on natural changes?

Surely you have read, or know what a peer reviewed journal is?

Im guessing:

No
No
and No

Thanks for playing
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-04-16 10:09:05 AM
2 votes:

jehovahs witness protection: Let's ignore the fact that many of the planet's glaciers are GROWING.
Climate has changed on the third rock from the Sun for many millennium without being affected by humans.


Ah, yes, those dumb experts should have had someone smart like you to set them straight on the whole issue.
2012-04-16 04:00:35 PM
1 votes:

chuckufarlie: No evidence of scientific misconduct" that is a great phrase to hide behind because it does not even address some of the things that the CRU did that was not considered "scientific" and was therefore NOT judged one way or the other. The corrupting of the peer review process would be one such incident that was not looked at.

All it means is that the CRU was not guilty of completing rewriting the data that they had collected. Of course, they did not seem to believe there was anything wrong with destroying the original data (it cannot be reproduced), they did not find anything wrong with closing certain reporting stations (even though it did have a remarkable influence on those averages) and they did not find anything wrong with that little debate about hiding the truth because the truth did not fit their agenda.


In other words, you believe that Mann being found innocent by the Inspector General of the NSF only makes him more guilty. The only evidence you'll accept is if Glenn Beck checks Mann's data with a Bible in one hand and his long-form birf certificate in the other, all while balancing a chicken-wire cage that proves 9/11 was an inside job on his head, while humming the theme song to Sarah Palin's reality show. And after that, President Obama has to be the caddy for the CEO of Exxon-Mobil and Donald Trump is automatically President.

This is why you and your ilk are called "deniers" and not skeptics.

I'm sorry reality doesn't fit with your conspiracy theory. Take it up with the IG of the NSF.
2012-04-16 03:55:53 PM
1 votes:

washington-babylon: Also, Chimp_ninja, Ad Hominem attacks are cute ways to undermine yourself. If you wish to retain any sense of legitimacy in your arguments it would be best to stay away from them.


Being a Creationist is a much, much more effective way to undermine your "legitimacy" in any field of understanding, though. I don't apologize for mocking people like you.
2012-04-16 03:14:13 PM
1 votes:

chuckufarlie: Do you even know how the process of corroborating the work of others has been corrupted? As things stand, if one wants to get published then one has to go along with the prominent idea at the time. And seeing how your friends at the CRU are part of that corruption process, I am sure that you are aware of it.


And yet at least seven investigations by independent bodies have failed to find any evidence of this. Oops.
2012-04-16 03:00:58 PM
1 votes:

chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

chuckufarlie: my bad, hit the wrong button

Hee hee.

what are you, six years old?


I think people of all ages can laugh at the ineptitude of someone asking "Do you ever get tired of being wrong?" and then realizing he's asking the wrong person about the wrong topic.

Hee hee.
2012-04-16 02:27:51 PM
1 votes:
ReverendJasen:
No Such Agency: The US will own the north, and there's nothing anyone else can do about it, unless they want us to drop some very explosive things on them with total impunity.

America, Fark yeah!
We're gonna kick your ass and get away with it!

Quick, somebody find me a bald eagle. I'm going to blow it while humming the national anthem and masturbating with a flag.


You cannot "blow" a bald eagle, they do not have a true penis. Most male birds mate using a cloacal expansion, though some, for example emus, ducks and swans, have evolved a penis.
2012-04-16 02:13:00 PM
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: The theory *did* say the warming would be global when it was called "anthropogenic global warming". That theory has been falsified.


Are you one of these idiots that believes that there was a change from GW to GCC? That GW has somehow been abandoned (and therefore proven wrong)?

Global Warming (GW) and Global Climate Change (GCC) are both accurate and current descriptors for the current change. GW describes the main driving force (the average temperature of the planet is increasing) and GCC describes the impact (the increased energy in the system will result in chaos and shifts in climate). They are both common in scientific literature now and going back to the 1970's. Their use in science has not changed.

From the public's point of view, GW was the common term presented by the media early on. GCC was brought into common use by the media and the masses when the G.W.Bush administration decided to admit that GW is real but they felt that GW was an alarming term so they decided to use GCC instead. Which is fine as both were, and still are, correct terms.

If you actually look at the science instead of parroting media/political talking points you'll look less like an idiot in these discussions.
2012-04-16 01:45:42 PM
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: exatron:

Climate has changed on the third rock from the Sun for many millennium without being affected by humans.

Citation needed.

agreed, need a citation on that.
the climate has NEVER changed before man and industrialization
It has been totally 100% the same until about 1850 when we started using the devil juice from the dinosaurs to power those infernal machines we built.
Get rid of all machines and climate will once again never change.


Nobody, except idiots, are saying that the climate has never changed due natural forces.

This in no way invalidates the mountains of evidence that currently suggest that this current warming is real and is anthropogenic. Natural and man-made warming are not exclusive ... they can exist at the same time and can be either complimentary or can cancel each other out to some degree.

Your idiotic position is the equivalent of saying: "People have died of natural causes in the past and they will continue to die of natural causes in the future. This proves that there is no way that men can cause the death of other men. Everyone's deaths must be due to natural causes."

A patently false and incredibly stupid position.
2012-04-16 12:08:05 PM
1 votes:

jehovahs witness protection: Let's ignore the fact that many of the planet's glaciers are GROWING.


nca2009.globalchange.gov

Source for the image is: Meier, MF, M. B. Dyurgerov, UK Rick, S. O'Neel, WT Pfeffer, RS Anderson, SP Anderson, and AF Glazovsky. "Glaciers dominate Eustatic sea-level rise in the 21st century." Science 317, 5841 (2007): 1064-1067.


www.arctic.noaa.gov

Accumulated annual volume changes of ice caps and glaciers in the American Arctic (red), the Russian Arctic (green), the Eurasian Arctic (blue), and the entire Arctic (purple).

Data courtesy of NOAA. (new window)

Anything else you'd care to lie about, jehovahs witness protection? I won't call it a "mistake", because you constantly drop this load of crap into climate threads no matter how thoroughly refuted it is.
2012-04-16 12:07:31 PM
1 votes:

Virtue: XveryYpettyZ: A consensus exists

Or you referring to consensus as in "Every one knows the world is flat"


Not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you? The best way for a researcher to be immortalized is to disprove established dogma. That's how you become a "founder" of a school of thought, make money and earn prestige and awards. To compare the modern academy to the dogma of 500 years ago is... well... stupid.
2012-04-16 11:53:57 AM
1 votes:

Tatterdemalian: XveryYpettyZ: Appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy when it appeals to the authority of person x outside of the field of expertise of authority person x.

No, it's still a logical fallacy, because even authorities can be wrong, or lie.

/it's just a non sequitur fallacy disguised as an appeal to authority


Did you read the link?

The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]
The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.

The people he sites ARE legitimate experts on the subject
Assuming the person who said it is correct, 97% of experts agree.

Conditions fulfilled. It is a fairly strong of argument.

To say it's a fallacy because it's not AUTOMATICALLY true, just true in a limited, probabilistic sense is BS. It is the current state of the art. He is appealing to the proper authorities who (generally) have reached a consensus. Conditions met.
2012-04-16 11:28:35 AM
1 votes:

jehovahs witness protection: Let's ignore the fact that many of the planet's glaciers are GROWING.
Climate has changed on the third rock from the Sun for many millennium without being affected by humans.


The only glaciers that are growing are high altitude or very high latitude glaciers. At such elevations or so close to the pole, the extra humidity from below can lead to more precipitation at below zero temperatures. You have to read Daily News articles, not just the headlines. Virtually everything in the articles contradicts the denialist headline.

It's a trick that newspapermen have been using for centuries to flatter the prejudices of their readers without actually having to deny the facts, logic, truth, or science.

The second statement is strictly true, but irrelevant and misleading. Who is going to deny that for millions of years before there were humans, humans did not affect the environment? The thing is that now we are burning more land and forest than natural wildfires, using more fresh water than natural wildlife and plants, and we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by a thid and the amount of methane, a more powerful greenhouse gas, by 95% (denialists beg the question on this one). Furthermore, we are moving more earth than natural erosion by diverting rivers and building dams, and we are using up as much or more of the natural resources available to life as all the other non-microbial animal life combined. In short, whether its earth, air, water or fire, we are a power to be reckoned with in the world today, and in some ways have been for thousands of years--i.e., our tendancy to deforest land for farming, housing, roads, etc.

In 1894, Svante Arrhenius correctly arrived at the conclusion that doubling GHG in the atmosphere would lead to irreversible climate change, making the world as much as six degrees warmer. Halving it would lead to ice age levels of CO2 and thus make the world five or six degrees colder. (During the depth of the last ice age, the CO2 levels dropped to 180ppm versus 275 ppm for most of human Civilization, 280 ppm at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and 390 ppm plus today. When you include all of the feedback mechanisms, five or six degrees is what you get. Without all of the feedback, you can still expect 2-3 degrees, which is the IPCC target which we are sure to miss now that thirty years have been pissed away by fools and scoundrels and hemming and hawing even by the politicians who are aware of the problems.

Guess what? Hansen's measurements of the sensitivity of the atmosphere to GHG is almost exactly the same as the calculations done (by hand, before computers were used by scientists) by Arrhenius, a Nobel-prize winning scientist (1904) a century ago.

NOTHING MUCH HAS CHANGED SINCE THE MEASUREMENTS OF GREEN HOUSE GAS EFFECTS WERE DONE BY JOHN TYNDALL IN LONDON IN MAY, 1859. Athropogenic climate change was recognized in the 1820s and 1830s by Joseph Fourier.

The coal-and-petroleum- base-industrial-poltical-media complex would have you believe there is some doubt about these facts (although they don't actually dare deny them because that would expose them as fools or scoundrels, so they scream hoax and potter around the edges of genuinely doubtful details, sniping at science and scientists in the same way that all cranks and religious ninnies do).

The consensus that the world is warming has been established ever since the discovery of the Ice Ages in the nineteenth century. It has not been shaken by minority and maverick opinions such as Sir Fred Hoyle, author of Ice, a book I read in the Eighties or early Nineties, long after it was published and created a flap in the Seventies.

But as the philosopher said, logic never convinces. As another wise man said, it is difficult to convince a man of a fact when his interests lie in not being convinced. Short-sightedness has triumphed over science, facts and logic before and given the stability of human nature, I don't really expect the missing link, Man, to become a rational creature in the next few thousand years. Enjoy your ecological and economic catastrophe. It's a matter of scale, not "if" now. The time to act was thirty to forty years ago, when the facts were already clear and reasonably certain and the consequences known to be dire, although it was not yet known precisely how dire. The precautionary principle should have come into play if large and powerful extractive industry interests did not control the propaganda organs of large and powerful political parties and media syndromes.
2012-04-16 10:56:07 AM
1 votes:

heavymetal: I thought we all finally agreed it was real after a conservative backed study taking account of all conservative criticisms of climate change study were addressed, and still found it to be real.
Richard Muller, Koch brothers-funded scientist, declares global warming is real
(new window)

There really is nothing left to argue unless you are an idiot devoid of reasoning living in a fantasy land.

/ Seriously


Welcome to Fark.
2012-04-16 10:48:34 AM
1 votes:
dnrtfa, but did they mention how shallow a lot of those NW passage areas are?

/doubting deep draft ships could make it thru
2012-04-16 10:45:48 AM
1 votes:

jehovahs witness protection: Let's ignore the fact that many of the planet's glaciers are GROWING.
Climate has changed on the third rock from the Sun for many millennium without being affected by humans.


While your length is slightly above average, your girth seems much too small.

Things changed before for different reasons is a poor argument against things changing now for a reason.
2012-04-16 10:26:56 AM
1 votes:

guyinjeep16:
Surely you have considered that 97% of climate scientists have considered your view on natural changes?


argumentum ad populum verecundiam

30 Helens agree that this is a bad way to argue your point. (mostly because you're arguing that the people who get paid when they claim that there are problems agree that there are problems)

/please note that I did not attack your appeal to peer reviewed journals. I assume that there would be measurements in those papers.
2012-04-16 10:26:22 AM
1 votes:

jehovahs witness protection: Let's ignore the fact that many of the planet's glaciers are GROWING.
Climate has changed on the third rock from the Sun for many millennium without being affected by humans.


I love how people try to look at complex things in simplistic ways and ignore the things they don't wish to consider because it goes against their preconceptions.

"Right now we believe that it could be due to a very specific regional climate over Karakoram because there have been meteorological measurements showing increased winter precipitation," said the lead researcher. "But that's just a guess at this stage." But scientists emphasize that, whatever the reason, the trend in the Karakoram range is at odds with most of the greater Himalayas, where the rate of ice loss has doubled since the 1980s on 10 of the most regularly measured glaciers.

Link (new window)
2012-04-16 10:23:18 AM
1 votes:

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: duffblue: Are we talking Manhattan under two feet of water? I have only heard that we will lose coastal towns, but I highly doubt that they would just let NYC sink.

Depends. NYC might lose the edge of Manhattan with a 1 ft. increase in the sea level, but South Florida could be wiped out entirely.


you say that like it's a bad thing
2012-04-16 10:23:04 AM
1 votes:

jehovahs witness protection: Let's ignore the fact that many of the planet's glaciers are GROWING.
Climate has changed on the third rock from the Sun for many millennium without being affected by humans.



Citation Needed
\o/
|
/\
2012-04-16 10:21:20 AM
1 votes:

duffblue: Are we talking Manhattan under two feet of water? I have only heard that we will lose coastal towns, but I highly doubt that they would just let NYC sink.


Depends. NYC might lose the edge of Manhattan with a 1 ft. increase in the sea level, but South Florida could be wiped out entirely.
2012-04-16 10:20:27 AM
1 votes:

exatron: jehovahs witness protection: Let's ignore the fact that many of the planet's glaciers are GROWING.
Climate has changed on the third rock from the Sun for many millennium without being affected by humans.

Citation needed.


Really you need a citation that the climate has changed over and over on this planet??

Did you sleep during 3rd grade science?
2012-04-16 10:17:10 AM
1 votes:

exatron:

Climate has changed on the third rock from the Sun for many millennium without being affected by humans.

Citation needed.


agreed, need a citation on that.
the climate has NEVER changed before man and industrialization
It has been totally 100% the same until about 1850 when we started using the devil juice from the dinosaurs to power those infernal machines we built.
Get rid of all machines and climate will once again never change.
2012-04-16 10:16:00 AM
1 votes:
I thought we all finally agreed it was real after a conservative backed study taking account of all conservative criticisms of climate change study were addressed, and still found it to be real.
Richard Muller, Koch brothers-funded scientist, declares global warming is real
(new window)

There really is nothing left to argue unless you are an idiot devoid of reasoning living in a fantasy land.

/ Seriously
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-04-16 10:15:02 AM
1 votes:

skodabunny: jehovahs witness protection: Let's ignore the fact that many of the planet's glaciers are GROWING.
Climate has changed on the third rock from the Sun for many millennium without being affected by humans.

Well... one himalayan glacier has gained mass. Not all of them *sigh*.


I would imagine it has more to do with an increase in humidity due to a warming climate. Moisture that previously would have frozen out at a lower altitude now makes it to higher glaciers.

Of course that is a complex chain of reasoning for a real marekin.
2012-04-16 10:13:40 AM
1 votes:

reveal101: That's because military planners aren't as stupid as climate change deniers. Military planners have to work in the bounds of what we call "reality".


Military planners also have plans to attack Canada, England, Australia, and West Senegal.
2012-04-16 10:09:06 AM
1 votes:

jehovahs witness protection: Let's ignore the fact that many of the planet's glaciers are GROWING.
Climate has changed on the third rock from the Sun for many millennium without being affected by humans.


Well... one himalayan glacier has gained mass. Not all of them *sigh*.
2012-04-16 10:08:54 AM
1 votes:

jehovahs witness protection: Let's ignore the fact that many of the planet's glaciers are GROWING.
Climate has changed on the third rock from the Sun for many millennium without being affected by humans.


Citation needed.
2012-04-16 10:08:25 AM
1 votes:

jehovahs witness protection: Let's ignore the fact that many of the planet's glaciers are GROWING.
Climate has changed on the third rock from the Sun for many millennium without being affected by humans.


Actually growing, so seasonally growing? Because for some reason global warming skeptics think pointing out that it's cold in February is proof global warming and climate change aren't real.
2012-04-16 10:04:58 AM
1 votes:
Let's ignore the fact that many of the planet's glaciers are GROWING.
Climate has changed on the third rock from the Sun for many millennium without being affected by humans.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report