Headlines like this are misleading. No one is saying the world isn't warming. The debate is whether or not this is a man made problem or the normal temperature cycling of the Earth.

Global warming activists who use these types of facts to prove their point aren't helping the cause at all.

First sun burn in April happened this year. Farming air us cool, but stand in the direct sun and it's hot!

vernonFL: Excuse me if I sound naive or snobby, but I thought that global warming was a proven fact, and the only arguments are whether or not humans are causing it, and what the long term effects will be?

There is no argument amongst those who can read and reason whether or not humans are causing it. I even think we're pretty effectively closing in on what the long-term effects will be, again with the reading and the reasoning.

ghare: This text is now purple: ghare: This text is now purple: fusillade762: Count Dyscalculia: vernonFL: Excuse me if I sound naive or snobby, but I thought that global warming was a proven fact, and the only arguments are whether or not humans are causing it, and what the long term effects will be?

Yes, but such discussions to not draw attention to either the speaker, the opposition or that fact that assloads of money can be made by both parties extolling their positions; WE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!! or LIBERAL BULLshiat!!!

[lh4.ggpht.com image 384x512]
[lh4.ggpht.com image 384x512]

The problem with this graphic is that to control 90% of the researchers, I only need to bribe the two guys who edit the journals with the largest impact factor. Once I control them, I control what research gets published, and who publishs or perishes. Very soon, I don't need to bribe the 90%, because I've marginalized the remaining dissenters, and everyone who wants a viable career has learned to parrot the company line. They've bribed themselves. I've seen this mechanism used to control the debate in other fields.

No you haven't, but it won't stop you from saying you have,

An adroit rebuttal, I commend you.

If you deserved better, you'd get it.

I'm already blessed by such a giant of a detractor.

We've only had 38 days and nights of rain, Global Flooding is a myth!

Don't criticize the AGW folks and their religion or Al Gore will bar you from carbon credits!

birchman: "I wonder if Republicans ever notice that almost every single thing they stand for is slowly being abandoned and left to die."

Once upon a time those weren't the things they stood for. They believed in a functional safety net, a solid national defense, effective regulation, healthcare reform, a balanced yet sane budget, etc. And it wasn't so long ago.

And then there came the Southern Strategy. And it worked. By the FSM did it work.
As it turns out, you can win elections for *generations* by creating a boogeyman, casting your opponent as supporter and enabler of the boogeyman and promising a return to the good-old-days. You needn't actually *deliver* on those promises. Those old days needn't actually be good. The boogeyman needn't actually exist and your opponents may be objectively better for the country than you. It simply doesn't matter.

As long as you can reach these people on an emotional level and keep them scared of that boogeyman, every attempt by your opponents to explain that the boogeyman doesn't exist is seen as *validation* of the boogeyman and their allegiance to him. And those scared voters will vote.

Once the GOP found the shortcut, they simply gave up trying to win in a straight-up election on the merits.
They know they're spewing hate and nonsense. They built their field of straw men; invented their 'others' to scapegoat. They sure as hell know it's a fiction. They just don't care.

chimp_ninja: antidisestablishmentarianism: Temperatures have fluctuated on earth throughout it's 3000 year history. Overzealous non-story.

Denier "logic" works about that well in other situations:

Reporter: Mr. Mayor, murders are up 75% since you came into office and laid off hundreds of police. Shouldn't you hire them back?
Mayor: Murder rates have fluctuated on earth throughout its 3000 year history.

Reporter: Mr. CEO, your company's stock is down 60% since you replaced your most experienced workers with high-school dropouts to cut costs. Shouldn't you hire them back?
CEO: Stock prices have fluctuated since the market's inception.

Reporter: Mr. Mayor, we have security video of the so-called "Mad Arsonist" setting fires to buildings. What will you do to stop him?
Mayor: Nothing. Did you know that fires existed before there were humans on the planet?

Nice straw man you have there...

We're past the tipping point. It's inevitable that it's going to happen.

With all the conservative idiots breeding like they do....Idiocracy is our future.

The same folks that are poo-pooing global warming, are the same idiots that will be saying...

...but it's got electrolytes.

downstairs: 27 years? In just the past 5 years I remember at least one winter month where temperatures had to have been way, way below averages. All over the country. Even down here in the deep south.

So, no.

What's that about the plural of anecdote not being data?

Yes, but the records only go back to 1978 when the hall of records was mysteriously blown away.

rustypouch: [farm5.static.flickr.com image 500x333]

/oblig

Better line:
"What if we wreck the global economy and nothing good comes of it?"

olddinosaur: However, one big thing which no one can dispute is: People will seize any crisis as a means to make a profit, and that is just what is happening here.

The notion that the climate change argument is a liberal plot is laughable when you consider who stands to make the most money off a system like carbon credits. I can guarantee you the people getting fat off it won't be climate scientists or "hippie" environmental groups.

People forget that before Al Gore polarized and politicized the GW debate with his film, there were an awful lot of republicans who were on board with the "solutions" to global warming, not to mention large corps who were willing to engage in the carbon market (ENRON was one). There most likely still are many R's who are on boards with it, however they'll never admit that publicly to their ignorant and frightened constituents.

Came for the graph/chart war, leaving mostly disappointed.

Good. I can't wait for the sun to explode.

What's awesome about these threads is they are 100% trolls trolling trolls.

steamingpile: Ambitwistor: J. Frank Parnell: Anyone who believes the carbon tax is about making the world a better place is about as gullible as they come.

Read up on Pigovian taxes, which have been supported by mainstream economists for nearly a century to deal with negative externalities like pollution.

Isnt this the same line of thinking where economists say France needs to charge their millionaires a 75% tax rate? Or where millionaires in the USA need to pay over 50%?

Yeah, those economists can kiss my puckered rosebud.

That's more or less what Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown of California is proposing. It's driving business out of California. I'm doing everything I can to move out of state.

joonyer: So no.

and we all know that they have collected the data in the same way with the same tools in the same locations since 1881.

Oh shiat, you're right! The methods and technology used for scientific data collection have CHANGED OVER TIME! OH MY GOD THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING

good, so we agree.
(no need for caps though).

comparing data that was collected in two different ways with different technology is pointless.

Now: "The temps in this location using digital thermometers at exactly 2pm EST is 75.56 degrees
Then: "Hey, did anyone record how warm it was today? Yeah, I saw the thermometer hit 75 degrees earlier today.

Conclusion: Global Warming

Who the fark cares? No skin off my ass. Hopefully the farking tide will rise 23 feet before I retire so I can sell my property for 25K per water front foot. Let me see....that will be 2.5 million. Come on global warming. fark all you pansies who can't adapt. Survival of the fittest my man..survival of the fittest.

antidisestablishmentarianism: Temperatures have fluctuated on earth throughout it's 3000 year history. Overzealous non-story.

I see what you did there.

JRoo: It Smee: Headlines like this are misleading. No one is saying the world isn't warming. The debate is whether or not this is a man made problem or the normal temperature cycling of the Earth.

Global warming activists who use these types of facts to prove their point aren't helping the cause at all.


"Three-Quarters of Climate Change Is Man-Made

An independent study quantifies the human and natural contributions, with solar radiation contributing only minimally

Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years, reports a pair of Swiss climate modelers in a paper published online December 4. Most of the observed warming-at least 74 percent-is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience.

Their findings, which are strikingly similar to results produced by other attribution methods, provide an alternative line of evidence that greenhouse gases, and in particular carbon dioxide, are by far the main culprit of recent global warming. The massive increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times would, in fact, have caused substantially more surface warming were it not for the cooling effects of atmospheric aerosols such as black carbon, they report."

Link

that Huber study was discredited since they forgot to account for the affects of the most prevalent green house gas: water vapor.

Magnanimous_J:

As an Atheist, a Scientific Humanist, and a moderate environmentalist, am I a total Uncle Tom that I am starting to have doubts about this Climate Change thing?

I feel like people are afraid to be skeptical at risk of being called stupid, or a republican or something. 27 years is a long time, but how many longer warming or cooling trends have we had in the untold millions of years the Earth has been rolling around the sun?

If you are scientific, it is appropriate that you question the anti-science mindset of the toadies pushing the warmer alarmist agenda. It is appropriate to remain skeptical of ANY science. Science is NOT about the goose-stepping, forced agreement. Science is about backing up hypotheses with data, and trying to shoot down hypotheses. Warmer alarmist "science" is not science. So, wear your skepticism proudly, and welcome to science!

This text is now purple: The problem with this graphic is that to control 90% of the researchers, I only need to bribe the two guys who edit the journals with the largest impact factor. Once I control them, I control what research gets published, and who publishs or perishes. Very soon, I don't need to bribe the 90%, because I've marginalized the remaining dissenters, and everyone who wants a viable career has learned to parrot the company line. They've bribed themselves. I've seen this mechanism used to control the debate in other fields.

You mean like all those Chicken Little scientists who said cigarettes caused cancer?

tenpoundsofcheese: joonyer: So no.

and we all know that they have collected the data in the same way with the same tools in the same locations since 1881.

Oh shiat, you're right! The methods and technology used for scientific data collection have CHANGED OVER TIME! OH MY GOD THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING

good, so we agree.
(no need for caps though).

comparing data that was collected in two different ways with different technology is pointless.

Now: "The temps in this location using digital thermometers at exactly 2pm EST is 75.56 degrees
Then: "Hey, did anyone record how warm it was today? Yeah, I saw the thermometer hit 75 degrees earlier today.

Conclusion: Global Warming

This isn't quite true. Sure, different methods are used, but all trying to get at the same physical property. What you get is different sets that have different assumptions and different amounts of uncertainty, but they're still useful. Not exactly equal, but comparable.

You wouldn't stay in a closed garage with one car running for 20 minutes because common sense would dictate that the fumes from the exhaust would have bad consequences, i.e. carbon monoxide poisoning would kill you. Why is it so hard to understand that many, many cars generating tons of exhaust fumes over the course of 100 years would not eventually have some impact on the planet? Yes, the Earth has methods of cleansing itself, to some degree, but is it really hard to understand that pumping tons of toxins into the air all the time will eventually cause some changes? That's not even adding in emissions from buildings, factories, planes, trains, etc.

Gases that are not cleansed by oceanic activity and plant life eventually work their way into the atmosphere and some stick around for a long time. Over time this will cause the planetary conditions to change. Probably in a bad way. It's common sense on a small scale, so why is the thought of pollution causing the planet to begin to heat up so hard to grasp on a large scale? Are people lacking common sense, are they scared, or just naive? I'm not an environmentalist but I'm also not stupid. And of course, the Earth goes through climate change on it's own, but is it so hard to imagine that human activity can't have an impact as well?

Damnhippyfreak: comparing data that was collected in two different ways with different technology is pointless.

Now: "The temps in this location using digital thermometers at exactly 2pm EST is 75.56 degrees
Then: "Hey, did anyone record how warm it was today? Yeah, I saw the thermometer hit 75 degrees earlier today.

Conclusion: Global Warming

This isn't quite true. Sure, different methods are used, but all trying to get at the same physical property. What you get is different sets that have different assumptions and different amounts of uncertainty, but they're still useful. Not exactly equal, but comparable.

useful for what?

with the different assumptions and uncertainty what does the margin of error look like and are the results outside that margin of error?

tenpoundsofcheese: JRoo: It Smee: Headlines like this are misleading. No one is saying the world isn't warming. The debate is whether or not this is a man made problem or the normal temperature cycling of the Earth.

Global warming activists who use these types of facts to prove their point aren't helping the cause at all.


"Three-Quarters of Climate Change Is Man-Made

An independent study quantifies the human and natural contributions, with solar radiation contributing only minimally

Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years, reports a pair of Swiss climate modelers in a paper published online December 4. Most of the observed warming-at least 74 percent-is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience.

Their findings, which are strikingly similar to results produced by other attribution methods, provide an alternative line of evidence that greenhouse gases, and in particular carbon dioxide, are by far the main culprit of recent global warming. The massive increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times would, in fact, have caused substantially more surface warming were it not for the cooling effects of atmospheric aerosols such as black carbon, they report."

Link

that Huber study was discredited since they forgot to account for the affects of the most prevalent green house gas: water vapor.


This is an outright falsehood on your part. From that paper:

I_Am_Weasel: After 326 months, shouldn't there be new average global temperatures?

Well they needed a fixed reference point. Good luck getting those-who-would-otherwise-try-to-fix-things to change that. Contradictory right?

But what of those persons, like me who are apathetic and just don't give a shiat about global warming and cooling? It's changing for sure. I won't deny it. I'm also not going to do a damn thing about it. My life is "green"-ish by choice, not peer pressure or politics.

antidisestablishmentarianism: Yes, but those last three things didn't really start happening until the gheys and single unwed mothers started showing up all over the place.

They've always been with us. What's changed is we've become lax in burning them to ensure they can't blast our crops and infect the clouds with their pathogenic sin.

BronyMedic:

Wow. I'm suprised GeneralJim and chuckufarlie have not been in here yet with the same debunked, misleading charts, and the same Cut and Paste responses they usually have when these get greenlighted.

You're just too stupid to see that thousands of scientists are lying to you in order to get grant money! Stupid Sheeple!

Speaking of stupid, are you really not bright enough to understand what "a handful of scientists" means? Around ten. Not thousands. The corruption of science is small, but politics is running climatology now, through the most corrupt political organization in human history, the United Nations.

I know you can't handle arguing against that, so you have to make up a scenario where people are claiming "all scientists are corrupt,' because that is a much easier argument to refute. But, just because it is easier does not make it valid.

trekkiecougar: Whether humankind is contributing to climate change or not is no excuse to keep trashing the planet.

If we are not then trying to fix it would detract from efforts to tackle other more direct environmental issues. Like algae blooms from farm runoff, dynamite fishing, dredge trawling, benzine in fuels, deforestation, poaching of endagered animals etc etc etc

you don`t hear much about that sort of thing in the news anymore, just climate change.....

I have a stillsuit. The spice oil must flow!

bugontherug:

In its latter years, even the Bush administration conceded the reality of global warming. It did so because the scientific evidence proved beyond all reasonable doubt that global average temperatures are rising, and they have been for a long time.

Yet the Fark Independents still claim it isn't happening.

Really? Who? Temperatures HAVE been rising, for about thirty years, and just recently stopped. Next, they would tend to drop, also for about thirty years. The error is in seeing the hand of man in this.

This text is now purple: The problem with this graphic is that to control 90% of the researchers, I only need to bribe the two guys who edit the journals with the largest impact factor. Once I control them, I control what research gets published, and who publishs or perishes. Very soon, I don't need to bribe the 90%, because I've marginalized the remaining dissenters, and everyone who wants a viable career has learned to parrot the company line. They've bribed themselves. I've seen this mechanism used to control the debate in other fields.


You have evidence that this is exactly what's happening with respect to climate science? May we see it?

BooCollins: How can you have the coolest March in 13 years and yet the streak is at 320 something months above average Also love how the Artic ice is at its highest level since 2001, but lets freak out because tomorrow I will have a polar bear drown in my front yard. Of course though since it is in a internet article they must know what they are talking about.

I know, it's like it's totally impossible that some above-average numbers could be smaller than other above-average numbers.


//math, how the fark does it work?

tenpoundsofcheese: Damnhippyfreak: comparing data that was collected in two different ways with different technology is pointless.

Now: "The temps in this location using digital thermometers at exactly 2pm EST is 75.56 degrees
Then: "Hey, did anyone record how warm it was today? Yeah, I saw the thermometer hit 75 degrees earlier today.

Conclusion: Global Warming

This isn't quite true. Sure, different methods are used, but all trying to get at the same physical property. What you get is different sets that have different assumptions and different amounts of uncertainty, but they're still useful. Not exactly equal, but comparable.

useful for what?

with the different assumptions and uncertainty what does the margin of error look like and are the results outside that margin of error?


Useful in that they can inform our understanding - as in not to be rejected outright. If you're wondering about something like the margin of error, keep in mind that there's different ways of stating it and it's not always plotted in all graphs. Here's an example from the NOAA:


Error of estimation in this case appears to be expressed as 95% CI through those black bars.

So what you see is differences in the amount of uncertainty in estimates through time. Again, different methods are comparable and useful, but not equal. As you can see, overall warming trends are far beyond what could be attributed to error of estimation.

fanbladesaresharp: I_Am_Weasel: After 326 months, shouldn't there be new average global temperatures?

Well they needed a fixed reference point. Good luck getting those-who-would-otherwise-try-to-fix-things to change that. Contradictory right?

But what of those persons, like me who are apathetic and just don't give a shiat about global warming and cooling? It's changing for sure. I won't deny it. I'm also not going to do a damn thing about it. My life is "green"-ish by choice, not peer pressure or politics.

Strangely, I quoted you to broadly agree then saw your name and so I will tell you about my uncle who was a farmer and at some point in the distant past lost his middle finger on his right hand at the first knuckle. As a small child I asked him how he lost it. He told me it was from sticking his fingers in a spinning fan, something I had recently been doing myself. I thought his fan must have had very sharp blades on it or something.

snowjack:

GeneralJim: Bribe, threaten, cheat, and fabricate: The Scientific Method.

...he types into his Holy Computer, which magically transports his words around the world using Jesus Power

Whatever drugs you're on, I hope you brought enough to share, young man.

chimp_ninja: antidisestablishmentarianism: Temperatures have fluctuated on earth throughout it's 3000 year history. Overzealous non-story.

Denier "logic" works about that well in other situations:

Reporter: Mr. Mayor, murders are up 75% since you came into office and laid off hundreds of police. Shouldn't you hire them back?
Mayor: Murder rates have fluctuated on earth throughout its 3000 year history.

Reporter: Mr. CEO, your company's stock is down 60% since you replaced your most experienced workers with high-school dropouts to cut costs. Shouldn't you hire them back?
CEO: Stock prices have fluctuated since the market's inception.

Reporter: Mr. Mayor, we have security video of the so-called "Mad Arsonist" setting fires to buildings. What will you do to stop him?
Mayor: Nothing. Did you know that fires existed before there were humans on the planet?

This is the greatest post I've ever seen on Fark. I would make love to it if I could.

How can anyone not trust fark independents and FOX news over every major science institution on the planet on a question of science?

The Jami Turman Fan Club:

Making those models is tough. Understanding what those models mean shouldn't be. Something changed our environment enormously in the last century. If it wasn't man-made, then what happened?