Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(MSNBC)   Climate Changists have gone from "it's a scientific consensus" to "odds are" it affects weather. We have to get these guys to Vegas. The House is a lot like Mother Nature   (usnews.msnbc.msn.com) divider line 337
    More: Interesting, El Nino, Atmospheric Administration, scientific consensus, National Oceanographic, government scientists, Arctic sea ice, National Climatic Data Center, citizen scientists  
•       •       •

2084 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Jul 2012 at 9:41 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-11 11:50:34 AM  
BUT HOW DOES THIS CONFORM TO THE URANTIA BOOK?!
 
2012-07-11 11:50:40 AM  

thecpt: I like reading about historical weather events like warming in Africa a couple 1000 years ago, to the cooling of Europe in the middle ages. I'm glad to see the elimination of CFCs and HCFCs across the globe. I'm just not sold on the carbon foot print and stuff like that saying that excess man-made carbon has lead to the current warming. I'd like to see how much heat island effect is effecting average temperature increases. I get it; statistical data showing it's getting warmer is truth. Just not sold on the reasons.


And if you were actually qualified to judge the data your opinion would be worth more than jack shiat.

The people who are qualified are convinced.
 
2012-07-11 11:53:15 AM  

chuckufarlie: Like I said, when YOU use a word like denialist, you are showing your ignorance.It reveals a lot about you.


No no, that's just your knee jerk reflex action. It's actually a quite accurate label, denialist. You aren't skeptical, you're contrarian. You're also an admitted shill who spends hours of his personal time trolling message boards from Fark to Google Groups that have even the most ancillary relation to AGW (including mathematics groups) with your patent shill nonsense.
 
2012-07-11 11:53:49 AM  

Jon Snow: As an aside, the "Panama hypothesis" in terms of direct ocean heat circulation change precipitating glaciation hasn't really stood up to modeling experiments over the past few years. The evidence seems to be pointing to a drawdown of atmospheric CO2 into the ocean, but the ultimate driver of that remains unknown. Changes in ocean circulation due to the closure of the Panama isthmus might have indirectly contributed to glaciation by aiding that drawdown.


Thanks for the links! I love this stuff.
 
2012-07-11 11:54:14 AM  

LeftCoast_eh: Maybe I'll just leave this here

regmedia.co.uk

Which came from this article

/hot link
//but cooling off


Do you people who keep citing this paper really not understand what it is you're endorsing? You're saying that a small region in northern Scandinavia has been cooling over the past several thousand years. Such cooling is to be expected based on orbital forcing.

That sort of high latitude NH cooling has been likewise documented in Arctic lake sediments. There is no claim being made about the Northern Hemisphere as a whole, much less the global temperature during the period in question.

Is that really what you're trying to say when you link to articles referencing it?
 
2012-07-11 11:55:09 AM  

Jon Snow: There is a very real cost to transitioning to a low carbon global economy- it will probably be a few percentage points of global GDP. The costs of transitioning are of course dwarfed by the costs expected to be incurred by pursuing an unchecked GHG emissions trajectory, we will have to make the transition eventually, and there are enormous cobenefits to public health from getting energy from cleaner sources than coal and biomass, but the cost isn't nothing.



So... we can use something like New Orleans as an example? Instead of spending the money now to move the city, we just keep building dikes higher and higher... but eventually the dikes are going to burst for good and that's that?



HotIgneous Intruder: Mainly, it's the poor humans who will die. That's the downside.
The scientists whose poorly-tought-out arguments lead naturally to eugenics (probably by some other name), both economic and racial, have nothing to worry about in terms of lifestyle impact or decline.



So... switching to a more nature-friendly model is going to lead to eugenics? Is that like same-sex marriage leads to orgies with livestock?
 
2012-07-11 11:56:23 AM  

chuckufarlie: verbal_jizm: chuckufarlie: when you use a word like denialist, you reveal your ignorance. There is no such thing as a denialist in a discussion of science. Unless or course you admit that science has nothing to do with this discussion.

Denialist applies to those individuals who neither use or understand science to support their argument that AGW doesn't exist but instead use sophistry. If someone actually criticizes the specific published studies or who questions the science in a true spirit of gaining a greater understanding, then they are called skeptics. There are few of these in the debate.

Like I said, when YOU use a word like denialist, you are showing your ignorance.It reveals a lot about you.


No it doesn't. It just shows my disdain for idiots that argue passionately with little knowledge of what they're arguing about. That's not ignorance.
 
2012-07-11 11:56:25 AM  

Jon Snow: Do you people who keep citing this paper really not understand what it is you're endorsing? You're saying that a small region in northern Scandinavia has been cooling over the past several thousand years. Such cooling is to be expected based on orbital forcing.

That sort of high latitude NH cooling has been likewise documented in Arctic lake sediments. There is no claim being made about the Northern Hemisphere as a whole, much less the global temperature during the period in question.

Is that really what you're trying to say when you link to articles referencing it?


If I had to guess, I'd say people like him are googling "proof global warming is fake" or something of the sort and then posting links to the first thing that looks even semi-professionally done.
 
2012-07-11 11:56:27 AM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: BUT HOW DOES THIS CONFORM TO THE URANTIA BOOK?!


He's busy shiatting up the end of thread no one's been posting to, as usual.
 
2012-07-11 12:01:27 PM  

thecpt: I like reading about historical weather events like warming in Africa a couple 1000 years ago, to the cooling of Europe in the middle ages. I'm glad to see the elimination of CFCs and HCFCs across the globe. I'm just not sold on the carbon foot print and stuff like that saying that excess man-made carbon has lead to the current warming. I'd like to see how much heat island effect is effecting average temperature increases. I get it; statistical data showing it's getting warmer is truth. Just not sold on the reasons.


While your post really does an A+ job of being a "man on the street not personally sold on global warming, confused about this whole whacky science thing but informed enough to drop jargon like urban heat island" angle, you need to get your new talking points.

You see, the data was updated to compensate for the urban heat island effect. This had the unfortunate effect of destroying a crutch contrarians were very fond of using, so the new talking point is that because Mann et. al. listened to their critics and took into account what they were saying about urban heat islands and (oops!) found that AGW was still happening, that means Mann et. al. are frauds, because they used new methodology and more data points to plot more relevant data, and so... something.

Nobody's really gotten that far yet, but the UFO cultist is bellowing it, and he just copy/pastes from all the best contrarian blogs, so he's always an accurate barometer of contrarian retardation.
 
2012-07-11 12:01:55 PM  
I'd post something snarky...but its...too...farking....hot.
 
2012-07-11 12:02:17 PM  

Farking Canuck: And if you were actually qualified to judge the data your opinion would be worth more than jack shiat.

The people who are qualified are convinced.


Spectacularly magnanimus and polite comment.

/Help your cause much, dorkus?
 
2012-07-11 12:04:38 PM  

enforcerpsu: Hoboclown:

It's been said a million times...that's not the point.

No one is against an better, cleaner world so please stop posting this. People are against useless and extraneous restrictions against themselves and employers.


It is the point. The denialist argument that all efforts to mitigate GW are economy destroying disasters is complete propaganda. Many of the efforts are actually opening up new industries generating profit and employment (for other countries ... not the US since the anti-science movement blocks any progress).

The fact is that many of the efforts that would result in a cleaner world with reduced dependence on the middle-east happen on the individual level at little or no cost. But the anti-science movement in the US blocks all progress in order to keep the status quo (i.e. profits high for polluting industries).

The knee-jerk reaction by the right definitely blocks the cleaner world and continues to pump money into the middle-east.
 
2012-07-11 12:05:19 PM  

Jon Snow: Dr. Mojo PhD: BUT HOW DOES THIS CONFORM TO THE URANTIA BOOK?!

He's busy shiatting up the end of thread no one's been posting to, as usual.


Oh jeeze. Here we go with the distraction tactics. Liking to other threads? That's pretty primitive.
 
2012-07-11 12:06:14 PM  

wippit: So... we can use something like New Orleans as an example? Instead of spending the money now to move the city, we just keep building dikes higher and higher... but eventually the dikes are going to burst for good and that's that?


Sort of.

There are three ways we can deal with anthropogenic climate change:

Mitigation: This refers to preventing the amount of change we have to deal with by lessening our increase in radiative forcings. Practically, this can mean reducing GHG emissions by using less fossil energy, or also increasing natural carbon sinks (e.g. reforestation).

Adaptation: This refers to trying to buffer systems against the consequences of anthropogenic climate change, rather than try to minimize the amount of change in the first place. Levee systems in response to anticipated sea level rise is an example. Nothing is being done to stop sea level rise, just the effect of SLR.

Suffering: This refers to enduring the consequences without mitigation or adaptation.

Our future will include all three. What proportion of each is almost entirely under human control. Right now, we've pursued a tiny bit of mitigation, an even smaller amount of adaptation, and endured a small (in the context of unchecked emissions) amount of suffering.

The scary thing is that we're not even pursuing adaptation. We're still encouraging people to live in areas that are susceptible to storms and flooding irrespective of climate change, which is only going to make them worse. Same thing with areas prone to drought. We're basically pursuing mal-adaptation or anti-adaptation- increasing the amount of suffering we will see rather than decreasing it.
 
2012-07-11 12:06:25 PM  

Farking Canuck: thecpt: I like reading about historical weather events like warming in Africa a couple 1000 years ago, to the cooling of Europe in the middle ages. I'm glad to see the elimination of CFCs and HCFCs across the globe. I'm just not sold on the carbon foot print and stuff like that saying that excess man-made carbon has lead to the current warming. I'd like to see how much heat island effect is effecting average temperature increases. I get it; statistical data showing it's getting warmer is truth. Just not sold on the reasons.

And if you were actually qualified to judge the data your opinion would be worth more than jack shiat.

The people who are qualified are convinced.


I wasn't asserting my opinion, and that last statement is kind of BS. Telling me something is happening without explaining it is useless and sounds a little like religion. Thanks to Jon Snow for offering an actual explanation that's simple.
 
2012-07-11 12:06:42 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Farking Canuck: And if you were actually qualified to judge the data your opinion would be worth more than jack shiat.

The people who are qualified are convinced.

Spectacularly magnanimus and polite comment.

/Help your cause much, dorkus?


I like how after all HI's points were shot down by Jon he's left with nothing but paranoid ranting and name calling, and has the nerve to complain about being called out on it.
 
2012-07-11 12:06:43 PM  

Jon Snow: Dr. Mojo PhD: BUT HOW DOES THIS CONFORM TO THE URANTIA BOOK?!

He's busy shiatting up the end of thread no one's been posting to, as usual.


I don't know what's sadder. The fact that he thinks he isn't insane in general, or that when the only other lone, solitary member of his jabbering support group has moved on to this thread, he's still in that one, emphatically agreeing with admitted shill chuckufarlie/nick steel about what a total monster you are for virtual hugs from an shadowy teddy bear in his little hug box that isn't there, and genuinely thinks this is normal behaviour in specific.
 
2012-07-11 12:06:58 PM  

Farking Canuck: The denialist argument that all efforts to mitigate GW are economy destroying disasters is complete propaganda. Many of the efforts are actually opening up new industries generating profit and employment (for other countries ... not the US since the anti-science movement blocks any progress).


You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. What are your qualifications for discussing this topic?
 
2012-07-11 12:07:22 PM  

LeftCoast_eh: KhanAidan: I_C_Weener: Theaetetus: [www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]
/posting in advance of what's-his-face who only posts the last 10 years of this data

Link

And you didn't go back 2000 years. :)

From the article you quote:

"The finding does not change our understanding of the warming power of carbon dioxide. In fact, it shows that human CO2 emissions have interrupted a long cooling period that would ultimately have delivered the next ice age."

So take your pick. Slightly warmer or an ice age.


So are you agreeing that anthropogenic warming exists? That now it's just a matter of its overall effect?
 
2012-07-11 12:07:36 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Here we go with the distraction tactics.


Distraction from what?

Again, are you drunk?
 
2012-07-11 12:07:54 PM  
Quick everyone post more charts and graphs to try and sway the opinion of the scientifically illiterate!
 
2012-07-11 12:08:26 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: Jon Snow: Dr. Mojo PhD: BUT HOW DOES THIS CONFORM TO THE URANTIA BOOK?!

He's busy shiatting up the end of thread no one's been posting to, as usual.

I don't know what's sadder. The fact that he thinks he isn't insane in general, or that when the only other lone, solitary member of his jabbering support group has moved on to this thread, he's still in that one, emphatically agreeing with admitted shill chuckufarlie/nick steel about what a total monster you are for virtual hugs from an shadowy teddy bear in his little hug box that isn't there, and genuinely thinks this is normal behaviour in specific.


And now the ad hominem part of our show begins!
Attack, attack, attack anyone who disagrees with us!
ATTACK!
 
2012-07-11 12:08:27 PM  

verbal_jizm: chuckufarlie: verbal_jizm: chuckufarlie: when you use a word like denialist, you reveal your ignorance. There is no such thing as a denialist in a discussion of science. Unless or course you admit that science has nothing to do with this discussion.

Denialist applies to those individuals who neither use or understand science to support their argument that AGW doesn't exist but instead use sophistry. If someone actually criticizes the specific published studies or who questions the science in a true spirit of gaining a greater understanding, then they are called skeptics. There are few of these in the debate.

Like I said, when YOU use a word like denialist, you are showing your ignorance.It reveals a lot about you.

No it doesn't. It just shows my disdain for idiots that argue passionately with little knowledge of what they're arguing about. That's not ignorance.


for crying out loud, how thick are you. Do you understand that your words make impressions on people? Do you understand that YOU do not control what that impression is? Do you understand that the entire world does not see things through your eyes?
 
2012-07-11 12:08:35 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Jon Snow: Dr. Mojo PhD: BUT HOW DOES THIS CONFORM TO THE URANTIA BOOK?!

He's busy shiatting up the end of thread no one's been posting to, as usual.

Oh jeeze. Here we go with the distraction tactics. Liking to other threads? That's pretty primitive.


Pretty ironic coming from such an enormous distraction such as yourself.
 
2012-07-11 12:09:29 PM  

chuckufarlie: Do you understand that the entire world does not see things through your eyes?


Most people do not understand that.

/Dunning-Kruger Effect is in play.
 
2012-07-11 12:10:15 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Jon Snow: Dr. Mojo PhD: BUT HOW DOES THIS CONFORM TO THE URANTIA BOOK?!

He's busy shiatting up the end of thread no one's been posting to, as usual.

Oh jeeze. Here we go with the distraction tactics. Liking to other threads? That's pretty primitive.


srsly. Using hyperlinks on a website? That's so gauche. Primitive. Savage, even. Why, a plantation owner's wife may just get a case of the vapors in the hot Atlanta sun listening to the field slaves break into a classic primitive negro spiritual about mark-up or PHP or even a Wiki, and need to sit on the porch with a tall glass of sugar-sweetened lemonade! Everything should be in 32 point font on a single page like TimeCube, as the good Lord intended. That's the future.
 
2012-07-11 12:11:49 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Oh jeeze. Here we go with the distraction tactics. Liking to other threads? That's pretty primitive.


HotIgneous Intruder: And now the ad hominem part of our show begins!
Attack, attack, attack anyone who disagrees with us!
ATTACK!


ironictag.gif
 
2012-07-11 12:13:09 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD:
You see, the data was updated to compensate for the urban heat island effect. This had the unfortunate effect of destroying a crutch contrarians were very fond of using, so the new talking point is that because Mann et. al. listened to their critics and took into account what they were saying about urban heat islands and (oops!) found that AGW was still happening, that means Mann et. al. are frauds, because they used new methodology and more data points to plot more relevant data, and so... something..


didn't know that or at least missed that one. My job requires urban planning and heat island effect for LEED accreditation so I knew how it effected locally, but no globally.
 
2012-07-11 12:14:30 PM  
I'm fine by the warming and the sea rise. I'm planning on using the fat carcasses of conservatives as sandbags.

Whether global warming is accelerated by human influences or not, it is occurring. Promoting the idea that we should do nothing to prepare just indicates how lazy and stupid conservatives are. Pointing at natural environmental conditions that are influenced by some statistical force and saying that one was caused by the other is like looking at the roll of dice and saying that a particular number result was caused by dice probabilities.
 
2012-07-11 12:14:35 PM  
The Taliban were linking to other threads before they blew up those Buddhist statues. Coincidence? I think not.
 
2012-07-11 12:15:17 PM  

chuckufarlie: verbal_jizm: chuckufarlie: verbal_jizm: chuckufarlie: when you use a word like denialist, you reveal your ignorance. There is no such thing as a denialist in a discussion of science. Unless or course you admit that science has nothing to do with this discussion.

Denialist applies to those individuals who neither use or understand science to support their argument that AGW doesn't exist but instead use sophistry. If someone actually criticizes the specific published studies or who questions the science in a true spirit of gaining a greater understanding, then they are called skeptics. There are few of these in the debate.

Like I said, when YOU use a word like denialist, you are showing your ignorance.It reveals a lot about you.

No it doesn't. It just shows my disdain for idiots that argue passionately with little knowledge of what they're arguing about. That's not ignorance.

for crying out loud, how thick are you. Do you understand that your words make impressions on people? Do you understand that YOU do not control what that impression is? Do you understand that the entire world does not see things through your eyes?


I'm aware, but in this case I'm not that worried that an idealist with little understanding of the relevant material, like yourself, thinks about me or what I would choose to call idealists like you.
 
2012-07-11 12:17:11 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: chuckufarlie: Do you understand that the entire world does not see things through your eyes?

Most people do not understand that.

/Dunning-Kruger Effect is in play.


so you are saying that VERBAL_JIZM is incompetent? Makes sense.
 
2012-07-11 12:18:42 PM  

Jon Snow: The scary thing is that we're not even pursuing adaptation. We're still encouraging people to live in areas that are susceptible to storms and flooding irrespective of climate change, which is only going to make them worse. Same thing with areas prone to drought. We're basically pursuing mal-adaptation or anti-adaptation- increasing the amount of suffering we will see rather than decreasing it.


Would people even listen? They live in California and get shook up all the time, knowing a bigger on can happen. Then live in tornado alley and those are only getting worse. They live in hurricane areas, flood areas, wildfire areas, volcanic areas... saying things will get worse isn't going to make them move if they haven't already.
 
2012-07-11 12:19:38 PM  

verbal_jizm: chuckufarlie: verbal_jizm: chuckufarlie: verbal_jizm: chuckufarlie: when you use a word like denialist, you reveal your ignorance. There is no such thing as a denialist in a discussion of science. Unless or course you admit that science has nothing to do with this discussion.

Denialist applies to those individuals who neither use or understand science to support their argument that AGW doesn't exist but instead use sophistry. If someone actually criticizes the specific published studies or who questions the science in a true spirit of gaining a greater understanding, then they are called skeptics. There are few of these in the debate.

Like I said, when YOU use a word like denialist, you are showing your ignorance.It reveals a lot about you.

No it doesn't. It just shows my disdain for idiots that argue passionately with little knowledge of what they're arguing about. That's not ignorance.

for crying out loud, how thick are you. Do you understand that your words make impressions on people? Do you understand that YOU do not control what that impression is? Do you understand that the entire world does not see things through your eyes?

I'm aware, but in this case I'm not that worried that an idealist with little understanding of the relevant material, like yourself, thinks about me or what I would choose to call idealists like you.


you are hilarious, or extremely stupid. The fact that you use a word like denialist tells me that you have no understanding of the relevant material. Keep up the facade, maybe somebody will buy into it. Somebody much stupider than you and that seems unlikely.
 
2012-07-11 12:20:42 PM  

thecpt: didn't know that or at least missed that one. My job requires urban planning and heat island effect for LEED accreditation so I knew how it effected locally, but no globally.


UHI is obviously a real phenomenon. But in addition to using statistical analysis to identify and compensate for it (usually be comparing data in urban areas to data in nearby rural areas), there are any number of other indices of warming that you can look at that are completely unaffected by UHI: sea surface temperature, lower tropospheric temp satellite data, sea level rise, ocean heat content, glacial mass balance, phenology changes (seasonal life cycle behavior in plants and animals), lake ice thaw dates, etc.

The thing about modern science is that good ideas are robust (i.e. they aren't dependent on a single method of analysis) and display consilience (internal coherence and consistency with multiple independent lines of evidence).
 
2012-07-11 12:21:29 PM  

verbal_jizm: HotIgneous Intruder: Jon Snow: Dr. Mojo PhD: BUT HOW DOES THIS CONFORM TO THE URANTIA BOOK?!

He's busy shiatting up the end of thread no one's been posting to, as usual.

Oh jeeze. Here we go with the distraction tactics. Liking to other threads? That's pretty primitive.

Pretty ironic coming from such an enormous distraction such as yourself.



HI: You don't know what you're talking about. See, we're really cooling!

Jon: Actually we're not.

HI: Well, we can't do anything about it!

Jon: Here's some things we can do.

HI: Shut up! You're all dirty eugenicists!


Nah, he sounds legit.
 
2012-07-11 12:23:38 PM  
Does the reason actually matter?

If changing the way humans use the planet would make living on it better, why not just shut up and do it?
 
2012-07-11 12:24:35 PM  

Farker Soze: HotIgneous Intruder: Farking Canuck: And if you were actually qualified to judge the data your opinion would be worth more than jack shiat.

The people who are qualified are convinced.

Spectacularly magnanimus and polite comment.

/Help your cause much, dorkus?

I like how after all HI's points were shot down by Jon he's left with nothing but paranoid ranting and name calling, and has the nerve to complain about being called out on it.


Actually, I bit and asked Jon what his magnificent irrefutable solution to this problem would be. He remains silent.

You people are arguing over the number of angels that can be fit on the head of a pin while ignoring the reality that nobody give a fark about it.

They just want to live in as much comfort and safety as possible; fossil fuels make that possible. By saying CO2 driven warming is the problem, you immediately illuminate the combustion of fossil fuels as the problem. Any limitation or regulation of the use of fossil fuels will result in a decline in comfort and safety for whomever is regulated, plus a decline in profit for the energy producers.

Politics won't ever allow that to happen. Ever.
To ignore that reality, as everyone in every one of these threads does, is infantile and typically the pervue of adademics and intellectuals. Their careers depend on the keeping the gravy train of corporate and government money coming. Also upon people remaining ignorant. As long as they can appear IRREFUTABLE, no matter what, and keep their students from thinking a certain way that runs contrary to the culture of self-sustaining money grubbing, they are all good. Threaten that gravy train from any direction, and you're toast. [They used to argue over plate tectonics this way too.]

We didn't start the warming. The warming is a fact. There were once glaciers. The glaciers melted and are melting. The water from those glaciers raised sea levels 400 feet, closing the Bering Strait land bridge and flooding into what is now the Chesapeake Bay. Are we contributing to the warming? Certainly.
Do people like Mister Irrefutable Jon Snow have answers? Hell no. They never will, either. That's why they're academics and not politicians.

Snow and his ilk failed to convince even me. That's a huge failure. If they can't even convince me, they will never convince the necessary senators and even more wobbly representatives. People will smile and shake hands and view charts, but the money will determine the status quo, for evermore.
 
2012-07-11 12:24:40 PM  

wippit: Would people even listen? They live in California and get shook up all the time, knowing a bigger on can happen. Then live in tornado alley and those are only getting worse. They live in hurricane areas, flood areas, wildfire areas, volcanic areas... saying things will get worse isn't going to make them move if they haven't already.


People respond to economic incentives. They live in areas like California despite the risk of EQs because the economic benefits far outweigh the risks. That's not true in many of the places we're talking about once you remove subsidies for housing and business, and insurance.
 
2012-07-11 12:25:36 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: I bit and asked Jon what his magnificent irrefutable solution to this problem would be. He remains silent.


Jon Snow: If you want to see an example of how to stabilize GHG emissions (which does not mean reducing emissions to zero, mind you), the stabilization wedge conceptual framework has plenty of examples of getting from here to there using commercially available technologies[1][2][3].

[1] Pacala, S., and R. Socolow (2004), Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies, Science, 305(5686), 968-972, doi:10.1126/science.1100103.
[2] Stabilization Wedges Introduction
[3] Blok, K., N. Höhne, K. van der Leun, and N. Harrison (2012), Bridging the greenhouse-gas emissions gap, Nature Climate Change, 2(7), 471-474, doi:10.1038/nclimate1602.

 
2012-07-11 12:25:44 PM  

Jon Snow: The thing about modern science is that good ideas are robust


The only difficulty is when data is hard to come by (like in paleontology and some disciplines of anthropology) or when data is mostly noise (like in nutrition "science"). That's when you see scientists making a whole lot out of little.
 
2012-07-11 12:27:22 PM  

wippit: Does the reason actually matter?

If changing the way humans use the planet would make living on it better, why not just shut up and do it?


What, and admit I'm wrong? That would hurt my fragile ego way too much.

There's your main reason.
 
2012-07-11 12:28:47 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Actually, I bit and asked Jon what his magnificent irrefutable solution to this problem would be. He remains silent.


No, he didn't. Quit lying.
 
2012-07-11 12:29:36 PM  

Jon Snow: People respond to economic incentives. They live in areas like California despite the risk of EQs because the economic benefits far outweigh the risks. That's not true in many of the places we're talking about once you remove subsidies for housing and business, and insurance.


Bullshiat.
The very structure of your language speaks to rich, white, upper-middle-class delusional values. It also reveals your agenda, which isn't really science, but actual social engineering. Remove the subsidies? You're really living in some delusional dream world. The oligarchs will nod politely at you and you will be summarily ignored, thank gawd.

But you're absolutely IRREFUTABLE, so there's that.
 
2012-07-11 12:31:10 PM  

Farker Soze: HotIgneous Intruder: Actually, I bit and asked Jon what his magnificent irrefutable solution to this problem would be. He remains silent.

No, he didn't. Quit lying.


Sorry. Maybe I missed it in among all of the bickering and copy-pasting and self-referential ego stroking.

Do tell.
 
2012-07-11 12:31:23 PM  

chuckufarlie: HotIgneous Intruder: chuckufarlie: Do you understand that the entire world does not see things through your eyes?

Most people do not understand that.

/Dunning-Kruger Effect is in play.

so you are saying that VERBAL_JIZM is incompetent? Makes sense.


Cue HotIgneous Intruder not getting his ovaries in a knot over this little ad hom.

Pro-tip, self-admitted paid shill: It doesn't make sense because you and your online hug box think so. It only makes sense if it's true. While it's possible that some people are incompetent, there is not evidence that VJ is one of them. "SO YOU'RE SAYING *hugmehugmehugmehugme* MY OPPONENT IS A POOP? WELL CLEARLY TRUTH!"

Since chuckufarlie has so kindly provided us with an explanation of how people's words and deeds leave impressions on the independent audience, consider (if you will), his behaviour here:

1. chuckufarlie engaged in a little sparring with verbal_jizm
2.

chuckufarlie: you reveal your ignorance.

3. If a person is ignorant on a subject, it flows from that that they are incompetent in it; a person who knows nothing of a subject cannot perform competently in its field.
4. HotIgneous Intruder name-checks the Dunning-Kruger effect (without explaining how verbal_jizm falls into it, which is key, of course, but they hope you don't think to much about this)
5. chuckufarlie comes along and, despite already having called verbal_jizm incompetent, uses HotIgneous Intruder's name-check to act as a straight man, as if this is a novel idea being presented by a third party despite already agreeing with it, and uses his existence to back-up his original claim (circular reasoning, confirmation bias, and the band wagon fallacy, all at once -- quite impressive, really).

So, boys and girls, since chuckufarlie is fond of the impressions people make with words and deeds, what impression would this leave an independent third party with? Would it leave them with the idea that they are engaged in a heavy amount of confirmation bias, basing their ideas not on evidence (as no evidence towards VJ's purported incompetence was provided before chuckufarlie happily deferred to this novel and mysterious idea he'd previously advanced himself), but on abortions of logic that involve referencing pop sci without understanding the underlying science and using each other as an echo chamber?

That's correct, boys and girls. That's the exact impression of chuckufarlie you should get, based on the evidence presented to us.
 
2012-07-11 12:32:06 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: They just want to live in as much comfort and safety as possible; fossil fuels make that possible. By saying CO2 driven warming is the problem, you immediately illuminate the combustion of fossil fuels as the problem. Any limitation or regulation of the use of fossil fuels will result in a decline in comfort and safety for whomever is regulated, plus a decline in profit for the energy producers.

Politics won't ever allow that to happen. Ever.
To ignore that reality, as everyone in every one of these threads does, is infantile and typically the pervue of adademics and intellectuals. Their careers depend on the keeping the gravy train of corporate and government money coming. Also upon people remaining ignorant. As long as they can appear IRREFUTABLE, no matter what, and keep their students from thinking a certain way that runs contrary to the culture of self-sustaining money grubbing, they are all good. Threaten that gravy train from any direction, and you're toast. [They used to argue over plate tectonics this way too.]


Using your internal logic:

In your first paragraph you say that scientists pushing for a reduction in CO2 emissions would hurt the economy. Then in the second paragraph you suggest that academics and scientists have an incentive to ensure that they continue to get paid by corporations and governments. If scientists had an incentive to do such a thing, then they would never mention the need to reduce CO2 emissions.

Who's funding will be getting cut if GDP growth slows. We already know the answer, state funding to universities has been falling over the past couple of years due to budget cuts.

I don't understand your internal logic here.
 
2012-07-11 12:35:01 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Sorry. Maybe I missed it in among all of the bickering and copy-pasting and self-referential ego stroking.


Yes, your posts are rather distracting.
 
2012-07-11 12:35:52 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: self-referential ego stroking.


chuckufarlie: HotIgneous Intruder: chuckufarlie: Do you understand that the entire world does not see things through your eyes?

Most people do not understand that.

/Dunning-Kruger Effect is in play.

so you are saying that VERBAL_JIZM is incompetent? Makes sense.


Again, note the highly selective targets of HotIgneous Intruder's ire. Very telling.

If "self-referential ego stroking" is as moral a turpitude as HII claims, why isn't his pique equally roused by chuckufarlie's circular conversation with him?

Can we really trust a person who is so nakedly and transparently selective in their outrage? Is it genuine outrage they feel, or is this selectiveness indicative of an underlying attempt at manipulation? Normal people are outraged no matter who is doing what they believe to be wrong... why does HII want to point fingers at one side (with naught more than his baseless accusations), and only one side, when there's a naked, glaring example with no finger-pointing and accusations needed that should outrage him just as much? Why the attempt at manipulation? Should we trust a person who behaves thus?
 
Displayed 50 of 337 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report