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.

(Washington Examiner)   US government now considers global warming a national security threat, which I guess means we'll start bombing the shiat out of the Arctic soon   (campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com) divider line 295
    More: Unlikely, CIA Director Leon Panetta, Mona Charen, Current sea level rise, Environmental Defense Fund, arctic, Canadian Studies  
•       •       •

1262 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 May 2012 at 4:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-05 09:55:50 PM
Anyone have a link to the Time and Newsweek global cooling articles from the 70's? Can't find em with google search. Looking for the full articles, not excerpts.
 
2012-05-05 09:57:36 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Anyone have a link to the Time and Newsweek global cooling articles from the 70's? Can't find em with google search. Looking for the full articles, not excerpts.


I got your back, buddy.
 
2012-05-05 10:03:14 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Noam Chimpsky: Anyone have a link to the Time and Newsweek global cooling articles from the 70's? Can't find em with google search. Looking for the full articles, not excerpts.

I got your back, buddy.


I fear clicking your link like you fear the weather.
 
2012-05-05 10:07:51 PM

Noam Chimpsky: I fear clicking your link like you fear the weather.


So you fear clicking the link in your sweaty, masturbation-aided fantasies while you cry over a picture of your grandmother during her sexy years?
 
2012-05-05 10:16:52 PM
By "now" we mean five years ago?
 
2012-05-05 10:17:51 PM
I'll bet the original topic, treating global warming as a security threat, would have been an interesting dsicussion. It's too bad that Fark's shiatty policy to let trolls run wild turned it into another lame "beat on the ignorant climate change denier" thread.
 
2012-05-05 10:18:41 PM
I'm pretty sure that if we just ignore it that it will go away
failing that we can pray it away. God promised that we would all be raptured up before it got too bad.
failing even that I'm pretty old and won't be around for the worst of it.

/GOP mentality.
 
2012-05-05 10:19:54 PM
Any time our government declares something a national security threat, loss of our rights soon follows. They declared drugs a threat and we got asset seizures without due process. They declared terrorists a threat, and we got warrantless wiretaps and airport groping.

I wonder what they want to do to us this time?
 
2012-05-05 10:22:56 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Noam Chimpsky: I fear clicking your link like you fear the weather.

So you fear clicking the link in your sweaty, masturbation-aided fantasies while you cry over a picture of your grandmother during her sexy years?


You seem a bit upset and maybe a tad bit projective. I find your comments out of place in a discussion about how much Democrats fear the weather.
 
2012-05-05 10:25:33 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Anyone have a link to the Time and Newsweek global cooling articles from the 70's? Can't find em with google search. Looking for the full articles, not excerpts.


Just watch Carl Sagan on 'Cosmos' from around 1979 where he talks about both deforestation and increased albedo being the reason for the cold 1960's and 1970's ("the next ice age and global cooling") and CO2 ("we're turning into Venus") global warming argument. He preaches both. But global warming was new so scientists were split on whether there was going to be man-made global cooling or man-made global warming. Either way though, there was research grants to be had as they needed to replace all the money they spent on researching dirty lakes and rivers which were essentially drying up as industrial pollution lessened at the end of the decade.
 
2012-05-05 10:41:30 PM

Chimperror2: Noam Chimpsky: Anyone have a link to the Time and Newsweek global cooling articles from the 70's? Can't find em with google search. Looking for the full articles, not excerpts.

Just watch Carl Sagan on 'Cosmos' from around 1979 where he talks about both deforestation and increased albedo being the reason for the cold 1960's and 1970's ("the next ice age and global cooling") and CO2 ("we're turning into Venus") global warming argument. He preaches both. But global warming was new so scientists were split on whether there was going to be man-made global cooling or man-made global warming. Either way though, there was research grants to be had as they needed to replace all the money they spent on researching dirty lakes and rivers which were essentially drying up as industrial pollution lessened at the end of the decade.


Actually, scientists weren't split at all.
 
2012-05-05 10:44:16 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Chimperror2: Noam Chimpsky: Anyone have a link to the Time and Newsweek global cooling articles from the 70's? Can't find em with google search. Looking for the full articles, not excerpts.

Just watch Carl Sagan on 'Cosmos' from around 1979 where he talks about both deforestation and increased albedo being the reason for the cold 1960's and 1970's ("the next ice age and global cooling") and CO2 ("we're turning into Venus") global warming argument. He preaches both. But global warming was new so scientists were split on whether there was going to be man-made global cooling or man-made global warming. Either way though, there was research grants to be had as they needed to replace all the money they spent on researching dirty lakes and rivers which were essentially drying up as industrial pollution lessened at the end of the decade.

Actually, scientists weren't split at all.


Carl Sagan wasn't a scientist?
 
2012-05-05 10:50:41 PM

Chimperror2: cameroncrazy1984: Chimperror2: Noam Chimpsky: Anyone have a link to the Time and Newsweek global cooling articles from the 70's? Can't find em with google search. Looking for the full articles, not excerpts.

Just watch Carl Sagan on 'Cosmos' from around 1979 where he talks about both deforestation and increased albedo being the reason for the cold 1960's and 1970's ("the next ice age and global cooling") and CO2 ("we're turning into Venus") global warming argument. He preaches both. But global warming was new so scientists were split on whether there was going to be man-made global cooling or man-made global warming. Either way though, there was research grants to be had as they needed to replace all the money they spent on researching dirty lakes and rivers which were essentially drying up as industrial pollution lessened at the end of the decade.

Actually, scientists weren't split at all.

Carl Sagan wasn't a scientist?


Carl Sagan talked a lot about nuclear winters and global cooling in conjuncture with nuclear war. Do you have a source for him talking about global cooling as a type of climate change?
 
2012-05-05 10:55:24 PM

ordinarysteve: Chimperror2: cameroncrazy1984: Chimperror2: Noam Chimpsky: Anyone have a link to the Time and Newsweek global cooling articles from the 70's? Can't find em with google search. Looking for the full articles, not excerpts.

Just watch Carl Sagan on 'Cosmos' from around 1979 where he talks about both deforestation and increased albedo being the reason for the cold 1960's and 1970's ("the next ice age and global cooling") and CO2 ("we're turning into Venus") global warming argument. He preaches both. But global warming was new so scientists were split on whether there was going to be man-made global cooling or man-made global warming. Either way though, there was research grants to be had as they needed to replace all the money they spent on researching dirty lakes and rivers which were essentially drying up as industrial pollution lessened at the end of the decade.

Actually, scientists weren't split at all.

Carl Sagan wasn't a scientist?

Carl Sagan talked a lot about nuclear winters and global cooling in conjuncture with nuclear war. Do you have a source for him talking about global cooling as a type of climate change?


Cosmos episode 4. Talks about both. Deforestation increasing albedo.
 
2012-05-05 10:59:22 PM

Chimperror2: cameroncrazy1984: Chimperror2: Noam Chimpsky: Anyone have a link to the Time and Newsweek global cooling articles from the 70's? Can't find em with google search. Looking for the full articles, not excerpts.

Just watch Carl Sagan on 'Cosmos' from around 1979 where he talks about both deforestation and increased albedo being the reason for the cold 1960's and 1970's ("the next ice age and global cooling") and CO2 ("we're turning into Venus") global warming argument. He preaches both. But global warming was new so scientists were split on whether there was going to be man-made global cooling or man-made global warming. Either way though, there was research grants to be had as they needed to replace all the money they spent on researching dirty lakes and rivers which were essentially drying up as industrial pollution lessened at the end of the decade.

Actually, scientists weren't split at all.

Carl Sagan wasn't a scientist?



More that Carl Sagan, being one person, should probably not be assumed to be representative of entire fields - especially those outside of his expertise. In addition, Cosmos', while a great TV show, should not be conflated with scientific literature.
 
2012-05-05 11:01:28 PM

Chimperror2: ordinarysteve: Chimperror2: cameroncrazy1984: Chimperror2: Noam Chimpsky: Anyone have a link to the Time and Newsweek global cooling articles from the 70's? Can't find em with google search. Looking for the full articles, not excerpts.

Just watch Carl Sagan on 'Cosmos' from around 1979 where he talks about both deforestation and increased albedo being the reason for the cold 1960's and 1970's ("the next ice age and global cooling") and CO2 ("we're turning into Venus") global warming argument. He preaches both. But global warming was new so scientists were split on whether there was going to be man-made global cooling or man-made global warming. Either way though, there was research grants to be had as they needed to replace all the money they spent on researching dirty lakes and rivers which were essentially drying up as industrial pollution lessened at the end of the decade.

Actually, scientists weren't split at all.

Carl Sagan wasn't a scientist?

Carl Sagan talked a lot about nuclear winters and global cooling in conjuncture with nuclear war. Do you have a source for him talking about global cooling as a type of climate change?

Cosmos episode 4. Talks about both. Deforestation increasing albedo.


Well I don't think I've seen that episode (not much of a source) but Sagan talked about a lot of different hypotheticals and science has progressed a lot in the last 40 years (you know, since we got computer and whatnot)
 
2012-05-05 11:02:50 PM
Holy balls, right-wingers. You've really gone off the derp end. Check out this billboard put up by the heritage foundation:

www.suntimes.com

Really? You're now likening people who believe scientific findings to The Unabomber? Holy fark, you're parents must be so proud.
 
2012-05-05 11:04:16 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Holy balls, right-wingers. You've really gone off the derp end. Check out this billboard put up by the heritage foundation Heartland Institute:


FTFM
 
2012-05-05 11:05:59 PM

ordinarysteve: Chimperror2: ordinarysteve: Chimperror2: cameroncrazy1984: Chimperror2: Noam Chimpsky: Anyone have a link to the Time and Newsweek global cooling articles from the 70's? Can't find em with google search. Looking for the full articles, not excerpts.

Just watch Carl Sagan on 'Cosmos' from around 1979 where he talks about both deforestation and increased albedo being the reason for the cold 1960's and 1970's ("the next ice age and global cooling") and CO2 ("we're turning into Venus") global warming argument. He preaches both. But global warming was new so scientists were split on whether there was going to be man-made global cooling or man-made global warming. Either way though, there was research grants to be had as they needed to replace all the money they spent on researching dirty lakes and rivers which were essentially drying up as industrial pollution lessened at the end of the decade.

Actually, scientists weren't split at all.

Carl Sagan wasn't a scientist?

Carl Sagan talked a lot about nuclear winters and global cooling in conjuncture with nuclear war. Do you have a source for him talking about global cooling as a type of climate change?

Cosmos episode 4. Talks about both. Deforestation increasing albedo.

Well I don't think I've seen that episode (not much of a source) but Sagan talked about a lot of different hypotheticals and science has progressed a lot in the last 40 years (you know, since we got computer and whatnot)


http://users.tpg.com.au/users/mpaine/Cosmos_greenhouse.html

He didn't make up the science about runaway albedo. This just counters the nonsense that there was no scientists talking about global cooling in the 1970's. Sagan summarized a theory in that episode. He also talked about global warming.
 
2012-05-05 11:09:40 PM
The Department of Defense has been worried about climate change for a decade.

http://grist.org/politics/pentagoners/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA477619.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508421
 
2012-05-05 11:10:29 PM
"Some Guy", FarkTardTrollMins?

"Some Guy"?

The Examiner - insular sociopath multi-billionaire Phil Anschutz's free hobo-toilet-paper extremist hyperbolic irresponsible vanity rag, which you f*cktards link day in and day out whenever you're too f*cking lazy to come up with anything both provocative and worthwhile - "Some Guy"?

Jesus.
 
2012-05-05 11:12:17 PM

vygramul: This is a surprise to someone?

In 2006, the Navy's think-tank did a report on this.


I didn't know about this report. Thanks!
 
2012-05-05 11:13:07 PM

Trapper439: chuckufarlie: DrBenway: chuckufarlie: so, what you are saying is that you really have nothing intelligent to add to the discussion.

Funny how someone so far in a hole can still try to condescend. Good luck with that, hoss.

All your boys do is make personal attacks and not one of you has the intelligence or the knowledge to address the things that I have stated. Good for you.

DIAF chuckufarlie, you asshole. I mean that literally. Die In A Fire.

You always demand citations from others, but never provide them yourself. You call people who disagree with you imbeciles, but whine about perceived personal attacks. You bring nothing whatsoever to any discussion besides infantile bullshiat, but you're constantly telling others to grow up.

You post repetitively and continually threadjack, but the mods let you get away with disobeying the posting rules in the FArQ because you drive up page clicks and therefore revenue.

Screw you, Drew, you farking sellout. You created a site that was supposedly designed to highlight hypocrisy and hyperbole in the media, and yet you've let it become a playground for shills and trolls.


How ironic, my troll-favorite note for him is (probably deserves to die in the fire), painted in dark red.

By now, I think he had put cameroncrazy on ignore, hopefully that is a factor of his derp rage storm.
 
2012-05-05 11:17:43 PM
Washington Examiner? C'mon, subby? You couldn't find a less biased source, like the Heartland Institute or the Heritage Foundation?
 
2012-05-05 11:20:38 PM
The Defense Secretary must have missed Examiner Columnist Mona Charen's recent piece on how symbols of global warming aren't working out the way environmentalists predicted.

Of course not! When has any scientist, particularly when being prodded by the media for predictions, made an accurate guess on what would happen, in any [non-mathematical] concept?
 
2012-05-05 11:25:32 PM

Chimperror2: ordinarysteve: Chimperror2: cameroncrazy1984: Chimperror2: Noam Chimpsky: Anyone have a link to the Time and Newsweek global cooling articles from the 70's? Can't find em with google search. Looking for the full articles, not excerpts.

Just watch Carl Sagan on 'Cosmos' from around 1979 where he talks about both deforestation and increased albedo being the reason for the cold 1960's and 1970's ("the next ice age and global cooling") and CO2 ("we're turning into Venus") global warming argument. He preaches both. But global warming was new so scientists were split on whether there was going to be man-made global cooling or man-made global warming. Either way though, there was research grants to be had as they needed to replace all the money they spent on researching dirty lakes and rivers which were essentially drying up as industrial pollution lessened at the end of the decade.

Actually, scientists weren't split at all.

Carl Sagan wasn't a scientist?

Carl Sagan talked a lot about nuclear winters and global cooling in conjuncture with nuclear war. Do you have a source for him talking about global cooling as a type of climate change?

Cosmos episode 4. Talks about both. Deforestation increasing albedo.


Carl Sagan was an Astronomer, not a Climatologist.
Cosmos (1980) ch4 p102 last para: .......The possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect suggests that we have to be careful. Even a one- or two-degree rise in global temperature can have catastrophic consequences........ We do not understand the long-term effects of our course of action.
Cosmos (1980) ch4 p103 first para:..... Might this cooling increase the polar ice cap, which, because it is bright, will reflect more sunlight..... driving a runaway albedo effect? (N.B. the question-mark!).

In short: At the time Carl Sagan wrote this, thermal runaway was not well known or well documented phenomena, but in spite of this Sagan was worried about the possibility and the small change required for it to happen. The albedo idea was even more questionable as a viable theory.

Now we know much better.
 
2012-05-05 11:42:21 PM

Bucky Katt: vygramul: This is a surprise to someone?

In 2006, the Navy's think-tank did a report on this.

I didn't know about this report. Thanks!


NP. I only knew about it because I worked there. (I didn't have anything to do with the report, though.)
 
2012-05-05 11:54:57 PM

Slaxl: Whether it's caused by man or not, if the Earth is heating up then it should be treated as a threat to your national security, to pretend otherwise is to fail to understand the potential ramifications such a thing would pose.


So, you want the Earth to cool down? Because those are the only two choices. Climate stability is not an option.
 
2012-05-05 11:58:46 PM

DrPainMD: Slaxl: Whether it's caused by man or not, if the Earth is heating up then it should be treated as a threat to your national security, to pretend otherwise is to fail to understand the potential ramifications such a thing would pose.

So, you want the Earth to cool down? Because those are the only two choices. Climate stability is not an option.


ardvaark.net
 
2012-05-06 12:18:57 AM

chuckufarlie: You warmers are the religious fanatics, not me. I have actually looked into the data. Might I suggest that you do the same?


farm5.static.flickr.com
 
2012-05-06 12:51:36 AM

chuckufarlie: quatchi: chuckufarlie: quatchi: Every major nation on earth has been putting together long term strategies against the potential national defense repercussions of AGW. From climate refugees over-running borders to food shortages and water wars the reality of AGW must be considered regardless of whatever line the ignorant, misinformed, disinformed, contrarian AGW deniers are whinging on about at any given moment.

CITATION REQUIRED

A report, scheduled to be published on Monday but distributed to some reporters yesterday, said issues usually associated with the environment - like rising ocean levels, droughts and violent weather caused by global warming - were also national security concerns.

"Unlike the problems that we are used to dealing with, these will come upon us extremely slowly, but come they will, and they will be grinding and inexorable," Richard J. Truly, a retired United States Navy vice admiral and former NASA administrator, said in the report.

The effects of global warming, the study said, could lead to large-scale migrations, increased border tensions, the spread of disease and conflicts over food and water. All could lead to direct involvement by the United States military.

NYT Link (from 2007)

That's the US.

Here's a PDF that goes into greater detail...

Link

Here's a pdf indicating Europe's concerns.

Link

Thanks for asking.

Why is it that some people get scared shiatless when they hear that something "could lead to" something. That is hardly something to chase you under your bed. Grow a pair of gills and floaties.


At least gills and floaties would help when 40 millions people find themselves underwater
 
2012-05-06 12:55:12 AM

chuckufarlie: Farker Soze: Do you deniers get together on Facebook and coordinate? Chuckufarlie, you go threadshiat all over this thread, Chimperror takes his explosive diarrhea to that one?

Why do you object to somebody posting actual facts?


I have you favorited now as one super awesome swimmer. Thanks mon. How long can you tread water?
 
2012-05-06 01:11:24 AM

vygramul: jigger: Soon we'll get some bad weather and it's off to the internment camp.

http://www.infowars.com/yes-the-re-education-camp-manual-does-apply- do mestically-to-u-s-citizens/

Just when are those FEMA camps opening? The Germans killed 6 million Jews in the time it's taken FEMA just to build the damn things.


As soon as the global warming shows up, that's all the excuse they'll need.
 
2012-05-06 01:13:04 AM

Trapper439: Ah, I see.

chuckufarlie's shift has ended and now his fellow troll Chimperror2 has stepped up to the plate.

It's a veritable cornucopia of derp.


I think they're the same person. This same thing happened last night at just about the same time, and in a virtually identical thread. I'm going to start watching for signs of alt-ness; I suspect one is the other's alt, and soon we'll know for sure.
 
2012-05-06 01:15:10 AM

jigger: vygramul: jigger: Soon we'll get some bad weather and it's off to the internment camp.

http://www.infowars.com/yes-the-re-education-camp-manual-does-apply- do mestically-to-u-s-citizens/

Just when are those FEMA camps opening? The Germans killed 6 million Jews in the time it's taken FEMA just to build the damn things.

As soon as the global warming shows up, that's all the excuse they'll need.


I would think the War on Terrorism (TM) would suffice.
 
2012-05-06 01:29:45 AM
Well, at least the B-52s will only have to fly to Canada.
 
2012-05-06 01:39:01 AM
Are they trying to be supremely ironic?
 
2012-05-06 02:15:57 AM

chuckufarlie: The United Nations climate change panel "admitted that the melting Himalayas prediction was not based on science but on a 1999 media interview given by one scientist," Charen observed. "They said they regretted the error. Now, a study in nature, based on satellite imagery, has shown that some melting of lower altitude glaciers is taking place but that higher glaciers have been adding ice."


Late in the day but I'm just going to point out that high elevation glaciers adding ice while low level ones are melting is probably an indication that there is more warmer, damper air at higher elevations than previously. You see, cold air doesn't hold on to moisture very well so when it is very cold the air is very dry meaning no snow meaning no additional ice. When air gets warmer it can hang on to more moisture so you get snow at elevations and at times or in volumes that you didn't see previously. So sometimes more snow means warmer.
 
2012-05-06 02:43:59 AM
You know what I'm gonna do
I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado convertible
Hot pink, with whale skin hubcaps
And all leather cow interior
And make brown baby seal eyes for head lights (yeah)
And I'm gonna drive in that baby at 115 miles per hour
Gettin' 1 mile per gallon,
Sucking down Quarter Pounder cheeseburgers from McDonald's
In the old fashioned non-biodegradable styrofoam containers
And when I'm done sucking down those greeseball burgers
I'm gonna wipe my mouth with the American flag
And then I'm gonna toss the styrofoam containers right out theside
And there ain't a goddamn thing anybody can do about it
You know why, because we've got the bombs, that's why
2 words, nuclear farkin' weapons, OK?
Russia, Germany, Romania, they can have all the democracy they want
They can have a big democracy cakewalk
Right through the middle of Tiennamen Square and it won't make a lick of difference
Because we've got the bombs, OK?
John Wayne's not dead, he's frozen, and as soon as we find a cure for cancer
We're gonna thaw out the duke and he's gonna be pretty pissed off
You know why,
Have you ever taken a cold shower, well multiply that by 15 million times
That's how pissed off the duke's gonna be!
I'm gonna get the Duke, and John Cassavetes,
and Lee Marvin, and Sam Peckinpaw, and a case of whiskey, and drive down to Texas...
 
2012-05-06 02:51:42 AM
I want to laugh this off but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if its being classed as a "national security threat" simply to give Obama an excuse to by pass congress again.
 
2012-05-06 02:53:45 AM
What's worse, a stupid troll or the person who responds to them knowing they're a stupid troll?
 
2012-05-06 03:02:35 AM

randomjsa: I want to laugh this off but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if its being classed as a "national security threat" simply to give Obama an excuse to by pass congress again.


Who wouldn't?
 
2012-05-06 03:14:38 AM

Pharque-it:
Carl Sagan was an Astronomer, not a Climatologist.
Cosmos (1980) ch4 p102 last para: .......The possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect suggests that we have to be careful. Even a one- or two-degree rise in global temperature can have catastrophic consequences........ We do not understand the long-term effects of our course of action.
Cosmos (1980) ch4 p103 first para:..... Might this cooling increase the polar ice cap, which, because it is bright, will reflect more sunlight..... driving a runaway albedo effect? (N.B. the question-mark!).


The point was that there are people that don't believe that scientists were concerned about global cooling in the 1970's. Their re-write of history is that it was purely a media phenomenon, not a scientific one. Yet here is a scientist explaining contemporary theories of competing warming and cooling effects. Certainly the last 30 years has killed off the "deforestation will cause the next ice age" and has been replaced with "deforestation accelerates global warming" . The "increasing arctic ice will cause runaway global cooling" has been replaced with "decreasing arctic ice will cause runaway global warming." Sagan, as a scientist, is certainly aware of the differences between media hype and science. He simply illustrated two competing scientific theories that both existed at the time.

NB the question of an arctic "tipping point" is still a question whether it's warming or cooling. It's still a question today.
 
2012-05-06 03:23:10 AM

Chimperror2: Pharque-it:
Carl Sagan was an Astronomer, not a Climatologist.
Cosmos (1980) ch4 p102 last para: .......The possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect suggests that we have to be careful. Even a one- or two-degree rise in global temperature can have catastrophic consequences........ We do not understand the long-term effects of our course of action.
Cosmos (1980) ch4 p103 first para:..... Might this cooling increase the polar ice cap, which, because it is bright, will reflect more sunlight..... driving a runaway albedo effect? (N.B. the question-mark!).


The point was that there are people that don't believe that scientists were concerned about global cooling in the 1970's. Their re-write of history is that it was purely a media phenomenon, not a scientific one. Yet here is a scientist explaining contemporary theories of competing warming and cooling effects. Certainly the last 30 years has killed off the "deforestation will cause the next ice age" and has been replaced with "deforestation accelerates global warming" . The "increasing arctic ice will cause runaway global cooling" has been replaced with "decreasing arctic ice will cause runaway global warming." Sagan, as a scientist, is certainly aware of the differences between media hype and science. He simply illustrated two competing scientific theories that both existed at the time.

NB the question of an arctic "tipping point" is still a question whether it's warming or cooling. It's still a question today.



Sagan's expertise was in planetary sciences. He was, at the time of his studies, exercising his scientific skills coupled with his imagination to come up with hypotheses that deserved testing. Since then many of these have proven to be false and a few have proven true. He never 'married' himself to any one of them.

As to your 'tipping point' comment regarding whether we're heading towards a period of global cooling OR warming that isn't a question at all to a great majority of climatologists.

/science
/it works, biatches.
 
2012-05-06 03:25:30 AM

Farker Soze: Do you deniers get together on Facebook and coordinate? Chuckufarlie, you go threadshiat all over this thread, Chimperror takes his explosive diarrhea to that one?


I'm not a denier. Are you just incredibly stupid or just ignorant of the subject.

Usually people that throw around terms like "denier" are more entwined by the politics than the actual science. They are used to having other people think for them so they get uncomfortable when confronted with diversity no matter how slight.
 
2012-05-06 03:28:57 AM

Chimperror2: Farker Soze: Do you deniers get together on Facebook and coordinate? Chuckufarlie, you go threadshiat all over this thread, Chimperror takes his explosive diarrhea to that one?

I'm not a denier. Are you just incredibly stupid or just ignorant of the subject.

Usually people that throw around terms like "denier" are more entwined by the politics than the actual science. They are used to having other people think for them so they get uncomfortable when confronted with diversity no matter how slight.



You are a denier. Stop pretending that you're just 'asking questions'. That's disingenuous.
 
2012-05-06 03:38:58 AM
Cyber_Junk:


Sagan's expertise was in planetary sciences. He was, at the time of his studies, exercising his scientific skills coupled with his imagination to come up with hypotheses that deserved testing. Since then many of these have proven to be false and a few have proven true. He never 'married' himself to any one of them.

Sagan's expertise was in planetary sciences. He was, at the time of his studies, exercising his scientific skills coupled with his imagination to come up with hypotheses that deserved testing. Since then many of these have proven to be false and a few have proven true. He never 'married' himself to any one of them.

As to your 'tipping point' comment regarding whether we're heading towards a period of global cooling OR warming that isn't a question at all to a great majority of climatologists.



Umm, no. He was reflecting scientific viewpoints of scientists. Deforestation was a major research topic. He wasn't inventing or imagining anything. He was reflecting the current thought of the scientific community in 1979.

My tipping point comment was directed at the previous post that seemed to imply that since the runaway global cooling caused by increased arctic ice was posed as a question by Sagan, he didn't really believe it. Today, it is warming that is the concern since over the last thirty years, the temperature has warmed. Now the question is about a runaway warming effect. But it's still a question as to whether it will be runaway so the "NB" observation by the previous post is not any different than how it would be posed today (i.e. does an arctic albedo tipping point exist such that warming will runaway?)
 
2012-05-06 05:53:18 AM
How farking disingenuous. Have a look at the "carbon footprint" of the wars that we've started over the last 10 or so years and get back to me. Then for real fun, look at the environmental depredation generally. I cannot believe the hubris.
 
2012-05-06 06:43:08 AM

Xaneidolon: How farking disingenuous. Have a look at the "carbon footprint" of the wars that we've started over the last 10 or so years and get back to me. Then for real fun, look at the environmental depredation generally. I cannot believe the hubris.


What? Are you saying that 320-800 tons of depleted uranium blasted across the face of the Earth might have some kind of negative effect?


"...the Iraqis, the media and the troops - risk the most appalling ill health. And the radiation from depleted uranium can travel literally anywhere. It's going to destroy the lives of thousands of children, all over the world. We all know how far radiation can travel. Radiation from Chernobyl reached Wales and in Britain you sometimes get red dust from the Sahara on your car." --Dr. Chris Busby, the British radiation expert, Fellow of the University of Liverpool in the Faculty of Medicine
 
2012-05-06 07:19:08 AM
I'm enjoying this thread, even though I shouldn't. It just has so much to offer!

chuckufarlie / nicksteel proving what I have thought all along, that either he's paid intern wages to get beat up or he's the sort who would pay someone to beat him up, either way, someone gets paid. NTTATWWT.

Chimperror2 following in his footsteps, and spouting bullhockey talking points that have been debunked years before.

It's entertaining to watch. All we need now is for a certain green crusader to show up and bloviate entire walls of text.
 
Displayed 50 of 295 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report