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
    More: Interesting, El Nino, Atmospheric Administration, scientific consensus, National Oceanographic, government scientists, Arctic sea ice, National Climatic Data Center, citizen scientists  
•       •       •

2085 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Jul 2012 at 9:41 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



337 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-07-11 09:23:03 AM  
Donuts.
 
2012-07-11 09:39:59 AM  
The data doesn't care what you have to say.

But rather than pushing whatever agenda you've got going here, you should probably listen to what it has to say.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-11 09:40:31 AM  
So if they aren't 100% sure that this particular weather event is the result of climate change that somehow means that there isn't a consensus among scientists on climate change?

I know people who would think that was a perfectly logical argument.
 
2012-07-11 09:43:12 AM  
The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then a cult. It is nothing more then a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones. Any idiot can figure this out but nobody said liberals had critical thinking skills.
 
2012-07-11 09:44:22 AM  
We are inching closer to finally proving that correlation = causation!
 
2012-07-11 09:46:33 AM  
Really?

Global Climate Change is scientific consensus. The odds of a specific weather event have increased due to Global Climate Change.

/Click bait headline is click baity.
 
2012-07-11 09:47:33 AM  

lordaction: The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then than a cult. It is nothing more then than a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones. Any idiot can figure this out but nobody said liberals had critical thinking skills.


Now I get my "Help an Idiot" merit badge !
 
2012-07-11 09:47:59 AM  
I'm sure lots of worthwhile and scientifically accurate things will be said in this thread and people will definitely be convinced to switch to the opposite side of the climate change debate by all of the brilliant climatologists that post.

/or it will be a worthless troll thread like the 500000 climate threads before it, gotta get those clicks!
 
2012-07-11 09:48:37 AM  

cabbyman: We are inching closer to finally proving that correlation = causation!


no we are not.
 
2012-07-11 09:50:40 AM  

vpb: So if they aren't 100% sure that this particular weather event is the result of climate change that somehow means that there isn't a consensus among scientists on climate change?

I know people who would think that was a perfectly logical argument.


that would be great if:

a. there actually was a consensus.
b. science is a popularity contest


but neither A. nor B. is correct.
 
2012-07-11 09:50:58 AM  
media-cache3.pinterest.com
 
2012-07-11 09:51:13 AM  

lordaction: The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then a cult. It is nothing more then a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones. Any idiot can figure this out but nobody said liberals had critical thinking skills.


Derpity derp derp.
You're right about the wealth transfer thing.
But warming is happening. It's just not caused by humans.

Glaciers melting for the past 13,000 years, formation of the Chesapeake Bay by meltwaters, sea level up 400 feet since then, etc. We're in an interglacial warming period.
 
2012-07-11 09:51:24 AM  
Subby, your headline is BS. Climate scientists have not changed. It is still a scientific consensus. Normally a single event is linked to weather and not climate (learn the difference between the two things, it's pretty important. Conservatives like to say things like "It's snowing! This proves global warming isn't real!!!). Now they are saying that the drought in Texas was most likely brought on by global warming.
 
2012-07-11 09:52:13 AM  
Hmm, it's almost as if theories on environmental change are challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced?!
 
2012-07-11 09:53:17 AM  
I'm not here to fight global warming....
I'm here because Texas is almost always in drought. For the 28 years I've lived here, there has been drought 4 out of 5 years.
It's become a running joke that rain on the radar will literally go around our city to not rain on us.
 
2012-07-11 09:53:27 AM  
Data, biatches, how does it work?
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-07-11 09:54:05 AM  

js34603: I'm sure lots of worthwhile and scientifically accurate things will be said in this thread and people will definitely be convinced to switch to the opposite side of the climate change debate by all of the brilliant climatologists that post.

/or it will be a worthless troll thread like the 500000 climate threads before it, gotta get those clicks!


If every climate thread is a troll thread, what does that say about the topic?
OK, I'll bite: Climate is an politically and religiously loaded ideological topic.
Nothing anybody says will make a difference.

/Derecho, biatches.
 
2012-07-11 09:54:22 AM  
Is this headline a translation of the one a couple of links down?
 
2012-07-11 09:55:09 AM  

lordaction: The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then a cult. It is nothing more then a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones.


You sure you don't mean the oil industry? Because the Saudis weren't always rich.
 
2012-07-11 09:58:11 AM  
farm5.static.flickr.com
 
2012-07-11 09:59:14 AM  
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.
 
2012-07-11 10:01:14 AM  

serial_crusher: Hmm, it's almost as if theories on environmental change are challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced?!


But let's live according to it, then change with it?
 
2012-07-11 10:02:37 AM  

thecpt: Just not sold on the reasons.


At least you know you are being solicited.
 
2012-07-11 10:03:50 AM  

lordaction: The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then a cult. It is nothing more then a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones. Any idiot can figure this out but nobody said liberals had critical thinking skills.


You're suggesting some cabal with semi-religious overtones that incorporates virtually every climatologist, which for some unfathomable reason has as its sole agenda enriching poorer nations at the expense of richer ones, and you still have the temerity to sit there and smugly lecture the rest of us about critical thinking?
 
2012-07-11 10:08:28 AM  

vpb: So if they aren't 100% sure that this particular weather event is the result of climate change that somehow means that there isn't a consensus among scientists on climate change?

I know people who would think that was a perfectly logical argument.


I like Fark. Whenever there's a troll headline, there's usually someone who's paying attention to point out the BS in the first five comments or so.
 
2012-07-11 10:08:30 AM  
Fractional attribution of extreme weather events != the robust consensus that anthropogenic radiative forcings (mainly but not only long-lived GHGs like CO2 and CH4) have altered the planetary energy balance, causing us to warm towards a higher equilibrium.

You're welcome.

HotIgneous Intruder: We're in an interglacial warming period.


How many dozens of times does it need to be pointed out to you that glacial-interglacial cycling is driven by orbital forcing, that orbital forcing has been in the direction of cooling for the past several thousands of years, and that anthropogenic warming has sharply reversed this cooling and is pushing us in an entirely new direction?

lordaction: The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then a cult. It is nothing more then a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones. Any idiot can figure this out but nobody said liberals had critical thinking skills.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-11 10:09:02 AM  

s2s2s2: thecpt: Just not sold on the reasons.

At least you know you are being solicited.


meh, more of an expression. Unless there is someone asking me to buy carbon offset credits. They can fark themselves
 
2012-07-11 10:10:36 AM  
Can't tell if subby is trolling or not. At any rate, having a consensus isn't jeopardized by the statistical analysis of specific weather events as it relates to climate trends.
 
2012-07-11 10:14:56 AM  
The day Opama stops making me gay with fluoride is the day I might maybe consider listening to Climate Chang-ists (because so many sciencetists are yellow).
 
2012-07-11 10:19:04 AM  
media.comicvine.com
 
2012-07-11 10:19:37 AM  

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


If only that would worked. But now we have people cutting down the rainforest to make flyers promoting the Climate Change rock concert. We have piles of trash from the Climate Change Awareness Rally. We use to "Think globally, act locally" now we are trying to act globally and we aren't doing squat locally. And trying to act globally isn't doing it.
And now that Man Made Global Warming has been debunked (for real or imagined) people have lost the willingness to do anything. It's like they have lost faith in trying anything. MMGW has set back the real environmental movement decades so much so that you can't even get a highway clean up crew together.
 
2012-07-11 10:19:58 AM  

Jon Snow: How many dozens of times does it need to be pointed out to you that glacial-interglacial cycling is driven by orbital forcing, that orbital forcing has been in the direction of cooling for the past several thousands of years, and that anthropogenic warming has sharply reversed this cooling and is pushing us in an entirely new direction?


Yes. However. The only climate change causality relevant to humans is the present, ongoing interglacial warming process. It doesn't matter a fark what is causing it, but the evidence is absolutely clear and established science that the warming is happening and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
Nothing. Warming or cooling, who really gives a fark, Mister Irrefutable?
The effect to which we will need to adapt is THIS ONE, this warming cycle.

Who cares if cycles nested within cycles driven by whateverthefarkandwhocares go on and on, as they have always done and always will?

Humans face warming now. Later, they might face other things, but right now, there is warming, as there has been for 13,000 years. It is the problem of the moment. Adapt or die.
 
2012-07-11 10:21:13 AM  

thecpt: s2s2s2: thecpt: Just not sold on the reasons.

At least you know you are being solicited.

meh, more of an expression. Unless there is someone asking me to buy carbon offset credits. They can fark themselves


AlGore has some you can buy.
 
2012-07-11 10:21:24 AM  
www.woodfortrees.org
/posting in advance of what's-his-face who only posts the last 10 years of this data
 
2012-07-11 10:21:33 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.


There's absolutely nothing wrong with being skeptical about something for which you haven't been shown the relevant evidence. Despite claims by climate denialists to the contrary, people don't jump down your throat for asking questions.

If you want to understand the issue of climate change, and how we can confidently say that humans are warming the planet, you have to understand a few basic concepts.

The first is the issue of logical fallacies- that is, you need to be sure that the arguments you read that seem to contradict the scientific mainstream are actually logically sound and in disagreement. Take your example of pre-industrial climate change. Why would pre-industrial climate change preclude anthropogenic (i.e. human-driven) climate change? Forest fires have existed for hundreds of millions of years. That in no way means that we cannot start any by arson. Cancer has existed long before tobacco smoking. That doesn't mean you cannot attribute an increase in cancer incidence to smoking.

Climate science is often framed by climate denialists as somehow denying the existing of non-human changes of the climate, but this is an absurd strawman. The climate has changed quite dramatically in the past without humans, and these changes greatly inform our understanding of how the climate system works, and in the end strengthen our confidence that humans are warming the climate now.

The main reason for this is the second concept- which is planetary energy balance. The earth has an incoming and an outgoing budget for energy. Very simply, increasing GHGs retards some of the outgoing energy, trapping it in the climate system, necessitating warming to a higher equilibrium temperature. This is not something specific to humans. The same is true of any change in planetary energy balance- when a large, tropical volcano injects reflective aerosols into the stratosphere and a fraction of solar energy earth normally receives is instead reflected back to space, we expect Earth to cool slightly in response. Changes in the amount of dark, open ocean (which are very good absorbers of incoming shortwave radiation) and light ice (which is a very good reflector of incoming radiation) also affect planetary energy balance.

Once you get a handle on energy balance, everything else becomes detail- i.e. "how much will X change Y", instead of "is it possible for X to change Y".

If you have any questions, let me know. I'm happy to discuss things via email if you're more comfortable that way.
 
2012-07-11 10:23:02 AM  

Jon Snow: How many dozens of times does it need to be pointed out to you that glacial-interglacial cycling is driven by orbital forcing, that orbital forcing has been in the direction of cooling for the past several thousands of years, and that anthropogenic warming has sharply reversed this cooling and is pushing us in an entirely new direction?


I just read a book about the history of mammalian evolution and it mentioned that it was probably the closing of the Straits of Panama that altered the global thermal circulation enough that orbital effects could drive ice ages. I think that suggests the obvious solution: we need to open the Isthmus back up.

Sure, it'll be hard, but it's gotta be easier than the other solution, which is to dam the ocean between Cape Horn and Trinity Peninsula to redirect the South Circumpolar Current.
 
2012-07-11 10:25:11 AM  
Funny thing is, a true scientist is never really 100% certain about anything.

And, that's actually a very good way to live.
 
2012-07-11 10:25:51 AM  
I should start smoking. I'll only be 15-30 times more at risk to get lung cancer so it's not like there's scientific consensus that I will get cancer from smoking.
 
2012-07-11 10:27:06 AM  

Jon Snow: Fractional attribution of extreme weather events


Jon, you are aware how "extreme weather events" are defined by the NOAA right? It is defined as an event that causes 1 billion in economic damages... and they keep this straight face without adjusting those costs with inflation. So through natural inflation, extreme weather events will keep increasing. They really need to change their definition.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/01/bad-economics-at-noaa.html

It's these types of issues I have with the NOAA and parts of the IPCC. And yes, the above links to primary sources showing this definition from the NOAA.
 
2012-07-11 10:28:20 AM  

chuckufarlie: that would be great if:

a. there actually was a consensus.


From the journal Science:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

You were saying?

As an aside, note that this is not a consensus of personal opinion. It's a consensus of the published evidence.
 
2012-07-11 10:28:32 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Funny thing is, a some true scientists is are never really 100% certain about anything.


Unless you've met all true scientists, you can't say that for sure.
 
2012-07-11 10:30:48 AM  

chimp_ninja: As an aside, note that this is not a consensus of personal opinion. It's a consensus of the published evidence.


You have a hilarious notional definition of "evidence."
Evidence proving WHAT?
To what end?
Have you thought your cunning plan through?
I doubt it.
 
2012-07-11 10:31:48 AM  

MightyPez: lordaction: The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then than a cult. It is nothing more then than a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones. Any idiot can figure this out but nobody said liberals had critical thinking skills.

Now I get my "Help an Idiot" merit badge !


Beat him over the head with a rock and you'll get your "Helping the rest of Humanity" badge
 
2012-07-11 10:32:26 AM  
Anyone else notice the pro - against, pattern on Fark?

First of the month - greenlight pro global warming belief - watch results
Second week of the month- greenlight anti global warming belief - watch results

Fark - Profit.
 
2012-07-11 10:32:39 AM  

Theaetetus: Vodka Zombie: Funny thing is, a some true scientists is are never really 100% certain about anything.

Unless you've met all true scientists, you can't say that for sure.


True.

But, I know this from looking at the data and from having seen a few scientists in my day.
 
2012-07-11 10:34:40 AM  
Apparently the denialists don't understand English either.
 
2012-07-11 10:37:50 AM  
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.
 
2012-07-11 10:38:25 AM  

Jon Snow:

Thanks, sincerely.
A common problem I've found is that as much as denialists try to apply improper reasoning, the same is true for the other side. This makes a skeptic (of any theory or disproval of a theory) not want to care. I remember seeing the statistic of how much water absorbs sunlight, and how much ice reflects it which makes a snow-ball (yay pun) effect for warmth. I brought it up in an argument as a counter argument to the pro-carbon-is-causing-global-warming side after they stated that earth's atmosphere is thinned at the poles(also true). They kept getting their theories mixed (carbon makes excess atmosphere, atmosphere has been thinned) and they ended up looking like idiots so my side won the debate (engineering science, junior class at my college).

Albeit we won based on the Thank you for Smoking monta. "I'm not right, but I proved you wrong."

All in all, I believe in climate change but people believe in global warming and suck at facts. But I'm also the nut who is convinced we need nuclear energy.

 
2012-07-11 10:39:41 AM  

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


Because wind and solar require subsidies. If climate change is a problem, they may be worth it in terms of reducing CO2. If not, they may not be. If solar or public transport cost us nothing, we'd be doing it anyway.
 
2012-07-11 10:39:56 AM  
farked up the italics. argh
 
2012-07-11 10:43:04 AM  
Idiotic debate and playing right into the hands of the bad guys.

The problem isn't about the climate in particular or what rich nations do to poor nations. It's about whether we should continue shiatting up the planet we live on. The obvious answer is NO.

The clever bastards who are making a profit from raping the earth are obfuscating the debate by making it about something else. It doesn't matter what. No wonder it sounds like constantly changing BS. It is intended to be.
 
2012-07-11 10:44:07 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Apparently the denialists don't understand English either.


Specking of the English....

I only trust people who wear lab coat and speck with an English accent
 
2012-07-11 10:46:09 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Yes.


So you understand and agree that we haven't been warming due to an interglacial (i.e. for orbital forcing and associated feedbacks) for thousands of years, but rather should be cooling? Great.

However. The only climate change causality relevant to humans is the present, ongoing interglacial warming process.

Oh, so you still completely fail to understand the very processes you're invoking? Gotcha.

It doesn't matter a fark what is causing it

Of course it does. Understanding what is causing it is absolutely fundamental to the questions of "will it continue" and "should we try to stop it".

If this was merely an effect of orbital forcing that would be small in magnitude and or reverse on its own relatively quickly, there wouldn't be much reason to do anything. If it was due to the sun suddenly and rapidly increasing its luminosity, we would pretty damn sure want to get some shortwave radiation mitigation plan in place.

Knowing that it's being driven by our injection of long-lived GHGs into the atmosphere and knowing how much more we're on track to do so absent some sort of mitigation plan tells us a lot about what will happen if we do or do not address it.

but the evidence is absolutely clear and established science that the warming is happening and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

Of course this is utter nonsense. Knowing the cause tells us that we can of course do something to stop it.

Nothing. Warming or cooling, who really gives a fark, Mister Irrefutable?

If you don't "give a fark", why do you post so much in climate threads? Why do you constantly seek to misrepresent the scientific evidence by implying- completely falsely- that the present warming is being driven by the same orbital forcing that drives glaciation cycling? Why do you pretend that this is part of some "cycle" when it very clearly is not?

The effect to which we will need to adapt is THIS ONE, this warming cycle.

What "cycle"? It sure isn't orbital. It sure isn't solar. It sure isn't a cyclical reduction in volcanic aerosols.

There is nothing "cyclical" about the present anthropogenic warming.

Who cares if cycles nested within cycles driven by whateverthefarkandwhocares go on and on, as they have always done and always will?

If you don't care, stop posting. As to why anyone would care about actual, real cycles in the climate system (as opposed to those who simply invoke them to deny anthropogenic warming), there are plenty of reasons. Let's say I want to understand changes in dominant fish species in a Pangaean rift lake. It would help greatly to understand that the change is fish species reflects a change in food source, which in turn reflects a change in lake composition, which in turn reflects a change in depth and nutrient cycling. These might be explained by precessional cycles impacting precipitation by affecting monsoonal rains- if the timing is right. But precession isn't really very significant outside of the lowest latitudes. Say your lake is more poleward than precession should really be affecting. It would probably help to understand that precessional changes can be propagated to higher latitudes by ENSO.

That's one example of why someone might want to be interested in cycles nested in cycles. As opposed to juvenile handwaving and appeals to complexity in order to deny the fact that humans are warming the planet.

Humans face warming now. Later, they might face other things, but right now, there is warming, as there has been for 13,000 years.

We've already established that it hasn't "been warming for 13,000 years". We know that orbital forcing peaked thousands of years ago.

If humans weren't warming the climate through our increase in radiative forcings, we would be facing something entirely different. Cause and effect matter. Adaptation vs. mitigation are directly informed by understanding cause and effect.


It is the problem of the moment. Adapt or die.
 
2012-07-11 10:48:53 AM  

MrBallou: Idiotic debate and playing right into the hands of the bad guys.

The problem isn't about the climate in particular or what rich nations do to poor nations. It's about whether we should continue shiatting up the planet we live on. The obvious answer is NO.

The clever bastards who are making a profit from raping the earth are obfuscating the debate by making it about something else. It doesn't matter what. No wonder it sounds like constantly changing BS. It is intended to be.


So, if you were a clever bastard, extracting and producing an energy product, would you rather sell it in an unstable, unpredictable, fluctuating market or would you rather have your product become the equivalent of a controlled substance by government decree, creating a predictable demand/revenue curve going forward?

Answer that question, then ask yourself who is playing into whose hands.
 
2012-07-11 10:48:59 AM  

theorellior: Sure, it'll be hard, but it's gotta be easier than the other solution, which is to dam the ocean between Cape Horn and Trinity Peninsula to redirect the South Circumpolar Current.


I like the idea of climate engineering in this fashion and support the idea of working to achieve goals, rather than sacrificing to reach them.

It would be ironic if our reduced consumption of fossil fuels resulted in our economic ruin, while other nations gained economic supremacy by increasing their consumption of fossil fuels to the point that CO2 spiked and increased the rate of climate change.
 
2012-07-11 10:51:29 AM  
Everyone knows there is a 100% chance of heat waves and droughts in Texas. But now they're 20 times more likely due to global warming? This is just more proof that climate science is a pseudo-science
 
2012-07-11 10:54:03 AM  

Pro Zack: I like the idea of climate engineering in this fashion and support the idea of working to achieve goals, rather than sacrificing to reach them.


Sometimes I think that if this is the Anthropocene, and we want it to last more than a couple thousand years, then we might as well man up and figure out how to properly manage the planet so that we, our domesticates, and the ecosystem that provides valuable services to our planetary economy, can last a million years or more.

I mean, we can beat the Pleistocene at least, right?
 
2012-07-11 10:55:42 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: MrBallou: Idiotic debate and playing right into the hands of the bad guys.

The problem isn't about the climate in particular or what rich nations do to poor nations. It's about whether we should continue shiatting up the planet we live on. The obvious answer is NO.

The clever bastards who are making a profit from raping the earth are obfuscating the debate by making it about something else. It doesn't matter what. No wonder it sounds like constantly changing BS. It is intended to be.

So, if you were a clever bastard, extracting and producing an energy product, would you rather sell it in an unstable, unpredictable, fluctuating market or would you rather have your product become the equivalent of a controlled substance by government decree, creating a predictable demand/revenue curve going forward?

Answer that question, then ask yourself who is playing into whose hands.


Are you trying to say that the Clever Bastardstm want regulation because they can control the market better that way? I won't deny that that is one tool they use.

My point is that they choose short term profit for themselves over long term benefit to everyone, and will gladly fark us all to get it.
 
2012-07-11 10:56:05 AM  

Jon Snow: We've already established that it hasn't "been warming for 13,000 years". We know that orbital forcing peaked thousands of years ago.

If humans weren't warming the climate through our increase in radiative forcings, we would be facing something entirely different. Cause and effect matter. Adaptation vs. mitigation are directly informed by understanding cause and effect.


Stop conflating.
You and I have a problem, Mister Irrefutable. It must be painful to have to face the facts and admit that your life's work is being rendered moot by facts.

Cause and effect do not matter when there is literally nothing that can be done about the problem. There is no political will to wreck the petroleum-based global economy and there never will be.

But I'll play along with you for a moment.
OK, Humans are the cause.
What is your proposed solution to SAVE THE WORLD?
 
2012-07-11 10:58:00 AM  

MyRandomName: you are aware how "extreme weather events" are defined by the NOAA right? It is defined as an event that causes 1 billion in economic damages


Here I thought extreme weather events were determined by their probabilistic likelihood of occurrence. And when I look at the actual report, it appears I'm right.

Perhaps relying on a blogging political scientist who has a history of smearing climate scientists who were mean to his paw isn't the best way to evaluate evidence?
 
2012-07-11 11:01:39 AM  

thecpt: the same is true for the other side


99.9% of any people in an argument on global warming or climate science in general are ignorant of the sum total of evidence and the models used and therefore resort to flawed logic to try to be right. That doesn't mean the actual scientists that are in consensus that AGW is occurring are also using that same flawed logic.
 
2012-07-11 11:02:22 AM  

thecpt: Thanks, sincerely.
A common problem I've found is that as much as denialists try to apply improper reasoning, the same is true for the other side.


Please be careful not to conflate the arguments of people championing a desired political outcome with what the scientific evidence actually says. If you stick to the scientific evidence, you'll find that sort of thing is exceedingly rate.

I remember seeing the statistic of how much water absorbs sunlight, and how much ice reflects it which makes a snow-ball (yay pun) effect for warmth. I brought it up in an argument as a counter argument to the pro-carbon-is-causing-global-warming side after they stated that earth's atmosphere is thinned at the poles(also true). They kept getting their theories mixed (carbon makes excess atmosphere, atmosphere has been thinned) and they ended up looking like idiots so my side won the debate (engineering science, junior class at my college).

No offense, but it sounds like neither group really understood what they were talking about. ;)

Albeit we won based on the Thank you for Smoking monta. "I'm not right, but I proved you wrong."

Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't mistake the existence of a "debate" between groups for the existence of a debate about causes in the actual scientific community.

All in all, I believe in climate change but people believe in global warming and suck at facts. But I'm also the nut who is convinced we need nuclear energy.

I am very pro-nuclear. We need "all of the above" when it comes to getting us to a global low carbon energy economy.
 
2012-07-11 11:06:22 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Data, biatches, how does it work?
[upload.wikimedia.org image 380x276]


Am I the only one panicking at the idea of going back to an Ice Age in a few years from now, based on that graph?
 
2012-07-11 11:09:29 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Jon Snow: We've already established that it hasn't "been warming for 13,000 years". We know that orbital forcing peaked thousands of years ago.


Sweet gawd Jon, so all the stories about the glaciers melting was just a pack of lies?
Mister Irrefutable Jon Snow is a now glacier denier?
 
2012-07-11 11:10:16 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Sweet gawd Jon, so all the stories about the glaciers melting was just a pack of lies?
Mister Irrefutable Jon Snow is a now glacier denier?


The more you post, the more you illustrate the First Rule of Holes.
 
2012-07-11 11:11:26 AM  
I'm guessing Subby loses a lot of money in Vegas. Maybe the climatologists can help explain to him/her that there's a consensus that hitting in Blackjack will raise the value of your play, but there are specific odds that you will draw any specific card every time you hit.
 
2012-07-11 11:11:59 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Jon Snow: We've already established that it hasn't "been warming for 13,000 years". We know that orbital forcing peaked thousands of years ago.

If humans weren't warming the climate through our increase in radiative forcings, we would be facing something entirely different. Cause and effect matter. Adaptation vs. mitigation are directly informed by understanding cause and effect.

Stop conflating.
You and I have a problem, Mister Irrefutable. It must be painful to have to face the facts and admit that your life's work is being rendered moot by facts.

Cause and effect do not matter when there is literally nothing that can be done about the problem. There is no political will to wreck the petroleum-based global economy and there never will be.

But I'll play along with you for a moment.
OK, Humans are the cause.
What is your proposed solution to SAVE THE WORLD?


My goodness. What a dirty little troll you are. You don't even bother addressing a single thing in the previous well articulated post that completely eviscerates all your points, just throw out invective and ad hominem instead.
 
2012-07-11 11:12:08 AM  

verbal_jizm: 99.9% of any people in an argument on global warming or climate science in general are ignorant of the sum total of evidence and the models used and therefore resort to flawed logic to try to be right. That doesn't mean the actual scientists that are in consensus that AGW is occurring are also using that same flawed logic.


Fun time with idiots. Next time you get someone arguing against global warming, ask them if they believe that the earth was always this temperature and it never changes

Next time someone is arguing for man made global warming ask them how many factories and cars it took to end the last ice age.

For whatever reason people feel the need to be in control and refuse to believe that things can change without their permission.

Maybe we should just focus on trying to keep the water clean and the air breathable.
 
2012-07-11 11:13:28 AM  

s2s2s2: serial_crusher: Hmm, it's almost as if theories on environmental change are challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced?!

But let's live according to it, then change with it?


Yes. Like we do with any other scientific theory on which the scientific community has reached consensus, such as general relativity. If we didn't do this, science would be relegated to the realm of navel gazing, and we wouldn't have all the awesome things we have today, such as modern medicine, computers, and (speaking of general relativity) GPS.

You . . . don't have much of a background in science, do you?
 
2012-07-11 11:14:36 AM  

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. :)
 
2012-07-11 11:14:37 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Stop conflating.


Conflating what?

You and I have a problem, Mister Irrefutable.

Other than the one in which you just completely ignore all evidence presented and whine about people presenting such as evidence thinking they're "irrefutable"?

It must be painful to have to face the facts and admit that your life's work is being rendered moot by facts.

What the hell are you talking about?

Cause and effect do not matter when there is literally nothing that can be done about the problem.

This is a beautiful example of fallacious reasoning. You're begging the question (and appealing to consequences).

If you don't understand cause and effect, how can you claim "there is literally nothing that can be done about the problem"? Does that even remotely make sense to you on a logical level?

There is no political will to wreck the petroleum-based global economy and there never will be.

The "carbon-based global economy" is going to end some day. The governments of the world understand this. Some are more proactive about transitioning away from it than others, but all of the countries that matter understand that carbon energy is both finite and comes with enormous unpriced externalities that need to be dealt with sooner or later- climate change among them.

But I'll play along with you for a moment.
OK, Humans are the cause.
What is your proposed solution to SAVE THE WORLD?


I don't have a "proposed solution to SAVE THE WORLD". 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 11:16:54 AM  

js34603: I'm sure lots of worthwhile and scientifically accurate things will be said in this thread and people will definitely be convinced to switch to the opposite side of the climate change debate by all of the brilliant climatologists that post.

/or it will be a worthless troll thread like the 500000 climate threads before it, gotta get those clicks!


This.
 
2012-07-11 11:18:03 AM  
Is it hot in here? Or is it just me?
 
2012-07-11 11:19:30 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Sweet gawd Jon, so all the stories about the glaciers melting was just a pack of lies?


What are you talking about?

Mister Irrefutable Jon Snow is a now glacier denier?

Are you drunk?

I_C_Weener: Link

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


You do understand that the paper referenced in that link dealt with a very small area of the Northern Hemisphere extra-tropics. And that orbital cooling is much more pronounced in the higher latitudes of the NH. That it says literally nothing about the Northern Hemisphere much less global average. And that it reinforces the fact that humans have reversed the orbitally-driven cooling of the past several thousand years, right?
 
2012-07-11 11:19:33 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Next time someone is arguing for man made global warming ask them how many factories and cars it took to end the last ice age.


What would be the point of this question? It's a non sequiter. As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, there's no doubt that you can get cancer if you're not a smoker but smoking still increases your risk. Obviously drastic warming and cooling cycles have occurred before humans but that doesn't mean humans can't affect the climate.
 
2012-07-11 11:22:12 AM  

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: that would be great if:

a. there actually was a consensus.

From the journal Science:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."
You were saying?

As an aside, note that this is not a consensus of personal opinion. It's a consensus of the published evidence.


peer reviewed papers are not what you think they are.
 
2012-07-11 11:23:07 AM  
So... what exactly are the downsides of making changes to how humans allegedly affect the environment?
 
2012-07-11 11:23:53 AM  

verbal_jizm: thecpt: the same is true for the other side

99.9% of any people in an argument on global warming or climate science in general are ignorant of the sum total of evidence and the models used and therefore resort to flawed logic to try to be right. That doesn't mean the actual scientists that are in consensus that AGW is occurring are also using that same flawed logic.


Yeah, I'm not saying that. It just creates apathy for me, kind of like politics. Neither side seems right, nor am I smart enough to derive the correct conclusion. Therefore it's pointless to care. Depressing in a way but that's how I live.

HotIgneous Intruder:

Cause and effect do not matter when there is literally nothing that can be done about the problem. There is no political will to wreck the petroleum-based global economy and there never will be.

But I'll play along with you for a moment.
OK, Humans are the cause.
What is your proposed solution to SAVE THE WORLD?


And this is why I don't like the denialists side. Cause and effect clearly matter, always. If you know the cause (which you're entertaining the idea of "its humans via carbon, how do we deal with it") you can deter and limit your addition to the problem until you have seemingly turned the tide or have a new solution due to ingenuity, change of circumstance, or technological advances.

My idea, increase dependence on Nuclear energy. Decrease dependence on fossil fuels. Debunk the green energies which are clearly impractical at this point and get moving on the ones that work (Fark tidal energy, "yah, lets kill all of the fish but its okay cause our commercial has a little girl reading about tidal as green"). And for heaven's sake decrease dependency on ground water draining foods. We're creating the causes for the next dust bowl and nobody cares.
 
2012-07-11 11:24:10 AM  

Jon Snow: 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.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being skeptical about something for which you haven't been shown the relevant evidence. Despite claims by climate denialists to the contrary, people don't jump down your throat for asking questions.

If you want to understand the issue of climate change, and how we can confidently say that humans are warming the planet, you have to understand a few basic concepts.

The first is the issue of logical fallacies- that is, you need to be sure that the arguments you read that seem to contradict the scientific mainstream are actually logically sound and in disagreement. Take your example of pre-industrial climate change. Why would pre-industrial climate change preclude anthropogenic (i.e. human-driven) climate change? Forest fires have existed for hundreds of millions of years. That in no way means that we cannot start any by arson. Cancer has existed long before tobacco smoking. That doesn't mean you cannot attribute an increase in cancer incidence to smoking.

Climate science is often framed by climate denialists as somehow denying the existing of non-human changes of the climate, but this is an absurd strawman. The climate has changed quite dramatically in the past without humans, and these changes greatly inform our understanding of how the climate system works, and in the end strengthen our confidence that humans are warming the climate now.

The main reason for this is the second concept- which is planetary e ...


yea, if you want to waste a lot of time with an egotistical poser.
 
2012-07-11 11:26:16 AM  

DarnoKonrad: Can't tell if subby is trolling or not. At any rate, having a consensus isn't jeopardized by the statistical analysis of specific weather events as it relates to climate trends.


If Subby is trolling, he's such a CUTE little troll!

If he's not trolling, holy shiat, the human race is doomed, if only for the level of pointless bickering we do.
 
2012-07-11 11:27:35 AM  

wippit: So... what exactly are the downsides of making changes to how humans allegedly affect the environment?


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.
 
2012-07-11 11:29:46 AM  

Jon Snow: thecpt: Thanks, sincerely.
A common problem I've found is that as much as denialists try to apply improper reasoning, the same is true for the other side.

Please be careful not to conflate the arguments of people championing a desired political outcome with what the scientific evidence actually says. If you stick to the scientific evidence, you'll find that sort of thing is exceedingly rate.

I remember seeing the statistic of how much water absorbs sunlight, and how much ice reflects it which makes a snow-ball (yay pun) effect for warmth. I brought it up in an argument as a counter argument to the pro-carbon-is-causing-global-warming side after they stated that earth's atmosphere is thinned at the poles(also true). They kept getting their theories mixed (carbon makes excess atmosphere, atmosphere has been thinned) and they ended up looking like idiots so my side won the debate (engineering science, junior class at my college).

No offense, but it sounds like neither group really understood what they were talking about. ;)

Albeit we won based on the Thank you for Smoking monta. "I'm not right, but I proved you wrong."

Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't mistake the existence of a "debate" between groups for the existence of a debate about causes in the actual scientific community.

Oh I don't. I thought it was a sham that we won and got an A. No one knew what they were talking about, but my side wore suits so clearly we deserved it. The was about shaping an argument based off of fact, which is kind of a stupid concept for truth seekers but excellent practice for the real world and business.
 
2012-07-11 11:31:50 AM  

verbal_jizm: What would be the point of this question? It's a non sequiter. As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, there's no doubt that you can get cancer if you're not a smoker but smoking still increases your risk. Obviously drastic warming and cooling cycles have occurred before humans but that doesn't mean humans can't affect the climate.


It was backing up your statement about people using flawed logic to make their arguments while at the same time giving everyone a fun way to exploit that at home.

Do you not remember what you posted?
 
2012-07-11 11:34:26 AM  

thecpt: verbal_jizm: thecpt: the same is true for the other side

99.9% of any people in an argument on global warming or climate science in general are ignorant of the sum total of evidence and the models used and therefore resort to flawed logic to try to be right. That doesn't mean the actual scientists that are in consensus that AGW is occurring are also using that same flawed logic.

Yeah, I'm not saying that. It just creates apathy for me, kind of like politics. Neither side seems right, nor am I smart enough to derive the correct conclusion. Therefore it's pointless to care. Depressing in a way but that's how I live.

HotIgneous Intruder:

Cause and effect do not matter when there is literally nothing that can be done about the problem. There is no political will to wreck the petroleum-based global economy and there never will be.

But I'll play along with you for a moment.
OK, Humans are the cause.
What is your proposed solution to SAVE THE WORLD?

And this is why I don't like the denialists side. Cause and effect clearly matter, always. If you know the cause (which you're entertaining the idea of "its humans via carbon, how do we deal with it") you can deter and limit your addition to the problem until you have seemingly turned the tide or have a new solution due to ingenuity, change of circumstance, or technological advances.

My idea, increase dependence on Nuclear energy. Decrease dependence on fossil fuels. Debunk the green energies which are clearly impractical at this point and get moving on the ones that work (Fark tidal energy, "yah, lets kill all of the fish but its okay cause our commercial has a little girl reading about tidal as green"). And for heaven's sake decrease dependency on ground water draining foods. We're creating the causes for the next dust bowl and nobody cares.


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.

Now to address your notion of nuclear energy - it is a great idea but there is no way that people are going to accept the idea of building more nuclear power plants after what happened in Japan. And don't start some insipid argument about how safe it is, I know that. But you do not realize that people do not think that it is. Unless you plan on FORCING people to accept nuclear energy plants in their area. Good Luck with that.]

Get your head out of your ass and take a look at the real world.
 
2012-07-11 11:34:42 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: verbal_jizm: What would be the point of this question? It's a non sequiter. As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, there's no doubt that you can get cancer if you're not a smoker but smoking still increases your risk. Obviously drastic warming and cooling cycles have occurred before humans but that doesn't mean humans can't affect the climate.

It was backing up your statement about people using flawed logic to make their arguments while at the same time giving everyone a fun way to exploit that at home.

Do you not remember what you posted?


Apparently I did.
 
2012-07-11 11:35:11 AM  

wippit: So... what exactly are the downsides of making changes to how humans allegedly affect the environment?


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.

We can all sleep well knowing nothing will change in our lifetimes, at least in terms of petroleum-based economics. The oligarchs will let the Jon Snows blather on and convince nobody and let their careers play out, but nothing will change. Unless, of course, there's a chance of someone making butt loads of money, like by imposing carbon taxes or credits. Even better if Wall Street gets involved, through legislation, in the carbon credit trade. The profit is built in, automatic.

So go on, Jon, enable those oligarchs. Give them the ammunition they need to really get the farking machine implanted in our asses and turned on high speed.
 
2012-07-11 11:36:00 AM  
Maybe I'll just leave this here

regmedia.co.uk

Which came from this article

/hot link
//but cooling off
 
2012-07-11 11:36:13 AM  

chuckufarlie: Get your head out of your ass and take a look at the real world.


I asked Jon Snow a question. Does he need a white knight like you?
 
2012-07-11 11:40:34 AM  

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.
 
2012-07-11 11:42:18 AM  

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."
 
2012-07-11 11:42:49 AM  
wtf is a "climate changist?"
 
2012-07-11 11:43:58 AM  
Rich, white, Western scientists: "It's not eugenics when we propose it!"
 
2012-07-11 11:44:48 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: wippit: So... what exactly are the downsides of making changes to how humans allegedly affect the environment?

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.


Eugenics? Really? I'm sorry I labeled you a troll earlier, I completely missed the tinfoil hat you're wearing.
 
2012-07-11 11:46:07 AM  

FlashHarry: wtf is a "climate changist?"


A Fox News attempt at a meme to make anyone who thinks human activity has any cause in recent rising temperatures is faking it.
 
2012-07-11 11:46:42 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: chuckufarlie: Get your head out of your ass and take a look at the real world.

I asked Jon Snow a question. Does he need a white knight like you?


I have an idea that I know what your problem is but that comment to "get your head out of your ass" was not directed at you.

Although it seems like it might be appropriate.
 
2012-07-11 11:47:04 AM  

theorellior: I just read a book about the history of mammalian evolution and it mentioned that it was probably the closing of the Straits of Panama that altered the global thermal circulation enough that orbital effects could drive ice ages. I think that suggests the obvious solution: we need to open the Isthmus back up.


If you're worried about another orbitally-driven glacial advance, we no longer have to worry about them. Orbital forcing is relative small, and we're more than capable of offsetting by producing HFCs or some other man-made (non-ocean acidifying) radiative forcing.

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.

Bartoli, G., B. Hönisch, and R. E. Zeebe (2011), Atmospheric CO2 decline during the Pliocene intensification of Northern Hemisphere glaciations, Paleoceanography, 26(4), PA4213, doi:10.1029/2010PA002055.
Lunt, D., P. Valdes, A. Haywood, and I. Rutt (2008a), Closure of the Panama Seaway during the Pliocene: implications for climate and Northern Hemisphere glaciation, Climate Dynamics, 30(1), 1-18, doi:10.1007/s00382-007-0265-6.
Lunt, D. J., G. L. Foster, A. M. Haywood, and E. J. Stone (2008b), Late Pliocene Greenland glaciation controlled by a decline in atmospheric CO2 levels, Nature, 454(7208), 1102-1105, doi:10.1038/nature07223.
 
2012-07-11 11:47:10 AM  

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.
 
2012-07-11 11:48:36 AM  

chuckufarlie: thecpt: verbal_jizm: thecpt: the same is true for the other side

99.9% of any people in an argument on global warming or climate science in general are ignorant of the sum total of evidence and the models used and therefore resort to flawed logic to try to be right. That doesn't mean the actual scientists that are in consensus that AGW is occurring are also using that same flawed logic.

Yeah, I'm not saying that. It just creates apathy for me, kind of like politics. Neither side seems right, nor am I smart enough to derive the correct conclusion. Therefore it's pointless to care. Depressing in a way but that's how I live.

HotIgneous Intruder:

Cause and effect do not matter when there is literally nothing that can be done about the problem. There is no political will to wreck the petroleum-based global economy and there never will be.

But I'll play along with you for a moment.
OK, Humans are the cause.
What is your proposed solution to SAVE THE WORLD?

And this is why I don't like the denialists side. Cause and effect clearly matter, always. If you know the cause (which you're entertaining the idea of "its humans via carbon, how do we deal with it") you can deter and limit your addition to the problem until you have seemingly turned the tide or have a new solution due to ingenuity, change of circumstance, or technological advances.

My idea, increase dependence on Nuclear energy. Decrease dependence on fossil fuels. Debunk the green energies which are clearly impractical at this point and get moving on the ones that work (Fark tidal energy, "yah, lets kill all of the fish but its okay cause our commercial has a little girl reading about tidal as green"). And for heaven's sake decrease dependency on ground water draining foods. We're creating the causes for the next dust bowl and nobody cares.

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 tha ...


Denialist was a generalization of those who say "no it's not happening" which you have to admit people say a lot, and I said it clumping in those who say carbon doesn't matter.

And of farking course I know about not in my back yard. Why the hell would you build anything like that on a fault line? Please don't tell me to get my head of my ass because you automatically assume everyone else is stupid because they felt like they didn't have to address common concerns that shouldn't even have to be mentioned when merely suggesting something.

/There have been two nuclear reactors within my direct vicinity. And I will continue to be more worried about Fracking North of me.
 
2012-07-11 11:49:01 AM  

FlashHarry: wtf is a "climate changist?"


Well, it would make sense as a opposite to 'denialist', that is, someone who understands exactly nothing about the science but still takes a passionate stand in the argument.

Just as stupid as denialists, but ultimately less harmful since at least they are right, even if they aren't correct.
 
2012-07-11 11:50:31 AM  

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.
 
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?
 
2012-07-11 12:36:40 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: 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.


Let's make a wager, shall we?

I bet that you're wrong. I bet that with sufficient public outcry and environmental damage, regulation on the use of fossil fuels is entirely possible.

I bet that if there was some negative consequence from burning, oh I dunno, let's say coal, and that consequence was causing problems not just nearby but was spread across a large geographic area, forcing people who enjoyed no benefit from the local combustion of coal to pay the unpriced externality of that coal burning, they could do something about it.

Now, I'm just spitballing here, but I also bet that they could get some sort of market-based program in place that allowed the coal companies to clean up what they were doing in a way that didn't run them immediately out of business.

I'd bet that of course people like yourself would claim that it would be the end of modern civilization if any additional price was put on coal. I'd bet that people would claim it was all a hoax. I'd bet that they'd predict economic catastrophe.

I'd bet that the naysayers would be wrong. That we could get a regulations on coal burning. That we could see great environmental improvement. And that we could do so not only without destroying our economy, but for far, far less than most analyses predicted it would cost.

Would you like to take that bet?
 
2012-07-11 12:37:45 PM  

KhanAidan: I don't understand your internal logic here.


You assume there is logic. He's either a little off his nut or a troll; I still can't tell which. In either case, logic doesn't even enter into it.
 
2012-07-11 12:39:32 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: 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.


Um. Not rich, upper-middle-class here but I respond and agree with most of social engineering our world through new policy based on science. The more educated the public is on something, the more empowered the politicians are to change it. I think Jon is trying to explain things to you, and trying to say change won't happen but we're already seeing it with the resurgence of electric vehicles and added contributions and investments in renewable energy.

We can dream, educate, and change.
/worked for lowering the number of smokers and increasing public health and other countless issues science has helped us understand
 
2012-07-11 12:40:03 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: 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.


As a white male with a household income less than C$45,000 a year, with a family of 6 living in a 4 bedroom house on an acre of land....

... what are these subsidies? I mean, I don't need the money to live, but wouldn't mind a little extra...
 
2012-07-11 12:42:01 PM  

Jon Snow: HotIgneous Intruder: 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.

Let's make a wager, shall we?

I bet that you're wrong. I bet that with sufficient public outcry and environmental damage, regulation on the use of fossil fuels is entirely possible.

I bet that if there was some negative consequence from burning, oh I dunno, let's say coal, and that consequence was causing problems not just nearby but was spread across a large geographic area, forcing people who enjoyed no benefit from the local combustion of coal to pay the unpriced externality of that coal burning, they could do something about it.

Now, I'm just spitballing here, but I also bet that they could get some sort of market-based program in place that allowed the coal companies to clean up what they were doing in a way that didn't run them immediately out of business.

I'd bet that of course people like yourself would claim that it would be the end of modern civilization if any additional price was put on coal. I'd bet that people would claim it was all a hoax. I'd bet that they'd predict economic catastrophe.

I'd bet that the naysayers would be wrong. That we could get a regulations on coal burning. That we could see great environmental improvement. And that we could do so not only without destroying our economy, but for far, far less than most analyses predicted it would cost.

Would you like to take that bet?


i.e. See the Acid Rain program by the EPA, their sulfur dioxide cap and trade system put in place in 1990.
 
2012-07-11 12:42:48 PM  

KhanAidan: I don't understand your internal logic here.


Is internal logic like internal combustion? Is it different from just combustion?
Logic is logic.

No, the AGW crowd does not understand that they are arguing for carbon taxes and other governmental controls on fossil fuel emissions and consumption. That's exactly what I'm saying, because they haven't thought their broadcasting of their cunning brilliance all the way through. If there is any effect from waving their arms about CO2 causing all kinds of badness, the only possible effect can and will be a scheme whereby certain groups make tons of money and the rest of us will certainly suffer somehow.

Is that counterintuitive? Oh yes, it is.
There is a reason why academics and "scientists" always fail miserably at forming social policy.

Ask the Aussies about their carbon tax, which has been used as an excuse to raise prices on everything from fuel to food and has even increased the inflation rate.
 
2012-07-11 12:45:12 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Snow and his ilk failed to convince even me. That's a huge failure. If they can't even convince me


NAMBLA Spokesman: Why, those anti-pedophile activists failed to convince even me. Failing to convince me is an utter failure! I should be the most convincable of all! After all, why would I want to hurt kids? I love children! *licks lips creepily*
 
2012-07-11 12:47:12 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: There is a reason why academics and "scientists" always fail miserably at forming social policy.


{citation needed}
 
2012-07-11 12:48:59 PM  

thecpt: We can dream, educate, and change.
/worked for lowering the number of smokers and increasing public health and other countless issues science has helped us understand


So don't conflate other social issues with use of fossil fuels, upon which our entire grand experiment is built and upon which our entire standard of living (such as it is) depends.

If you want a preview of the natural result of CO2 arm-waving alarmism, you need to cut your energy use in half. Immediately. That means half the heating, half the driving and half the electricity use. Or else simply take half your income and burn it on the hibachi grill. That would nicely simulate the social impact of carbon controls. Let me know how that turns out for you.
 
2012-07-11 12:49:43 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: We didn't start the warming. The warming is a fact. There were once glaciers. The glaciers melted and are melting.



You sound like you would be surprised by the first frost in October.

"Didn't the snow and ice in the backyard all melt away months ago? Why isn't it still getting warmer, damnit?!"
 
2012-07-11 12:50:03 PM  

verbal_jizm: HotIgneous Intruder: There is a reason why academics and "scientists" always fail miserably at forming social policy.

{citation needed}


Wasn't there that 5000-strong academic and scientist protest in Canada yesterday because of cuts to education and science programs?
 
2012-07-11 12:52:41 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Ask the Aussies about their carbon tax, which has been used as an excuse to raise prices on everything from fuel to food and has even increased the inflation rate.


Source, from your retarded Google search, this article

The Opposition has forecast large boost in prices on account of the carbon tax, but Mr Swan said in his weekly economic note that the levy is expected to boost inflation rate by only 0.7 per cent

When was the carbon tax introduced? Why, July 1st, 2012, of course. That's right, boys and girls, our economic expert (who is also an expert on the Dunning-Kruger effect, for real yo) assures us that he has rigorously studied Australia's economy over the past, um, 11 days.

What he does know for sure is that despite all the lip-service he pays to hating scare tactics and loving evidence-based reasoning, why, those scary forecasts a scant few days into the carbon tax must surely be right. Sure, it's the opposition saying it, so they have a vested interest in the scare tactics it presents to gain political cachet, and sure 11 days is nowhere near enough to go "THIS HAS ALREADY CONTRIBUTED TO AUSTRALIA'S INFLATION!" like HotIgneous Intruder does.

But the important thing that we remember here, boys and girls, is that HotIgneous Intruder only pays lip service to this. In reality, he hates evidence, and loves scaremongering. Remember when I pointed out the other inconsistencies he behaved by? We refer to those as patterns of behaviour.
 
2012-07-11 12:53:15 PM  

wippit: Wasn't there that 5000-strong academic and scientist protest in Canada yesterday because of cuts to education and science programs?


Keeping you stupid is a government imperative. But maybe those cuts are what the people want, if the government is truly representative of the people. Maybe your people are sick of idiot academics farking up the economy and social policy.
 
2012-07-11 12:54:49 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: When was the carbon tax introduced? Why, July 1st, 2012, of course. That's right, boys and girls, our economic expert (who is also an expert on the Dunning-Kruger effect, for real yo) assures us that he has rigorously studied Australia's economy over the past, um, 11 days.


Uh no. I cut in a link. Yoo decide. You're the genius.
 
2012-07-11 12:55:29 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: If you want a preview of the natural result of CO2 arm-waving alarmism, you need to cut your energy use in half. Immediately. That means half the heating, half the driving and half the electricity use. Or else simply take half your income and burn it on the hibachi grill. That would nicely simulate the social impact of carbon controls. Let me know how that turns out for you.


Both me and my wife telecommute for work, grow as much food as we can, and only turn on the heat (wood heat) when the house temp is under 60 F.

So, what do I win?

Other than a poopload of savings...
 
2012-07-11 12:55:41 PM  
See? AGW is an ideological argument.
Strictly abstract.
 
2012-07-11 12:57:54 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: KhanAidan: I don't understand your internal logic here.

Is internal logic like internal combustion? Is it different from just combustion?
Logic is logic.

No, the AGW crowd does not understand that they are arguing for carbon taxes and other governmental controls on fossil fuel emissions and consumption. That's exactly what I'm saying, because they haven't thought their broadcasting of their cunning brilliance all the way through. If there is any effect from waving their arms about CO2 causing all kinds of badness, the only possible effect can and will be a scheme whereby certain groups make tons of money and the rest of us will certainly suffer somehow.

Is that counterintuitive? Oh yes, it is.
There is a reason why academics and "scientists" always fail miserably at forming social policy.

Ask the Aussies about their carbon tax, which has been used as an excuse to raise prices on everything from fuel to food and has even increased the inflation rate.


Which one am I supposed to click?

Anyways, why are you so against any changes?

Example: I hate my old school. They cut out food carrying trays for meals and gave plates instead meaning you couldn't stack 3 plates and two drinks in one trip. They said it was to be more "green" which is essentially true. Less dishes to wash, students would eat less food and also waste less cause if you go up for one plate you are probably going to eat everything on that plate as opposed to getting 3 plates and realizing you're full half way through.

Yes. It was essentially to cut cost under the guise of "green." Didn't make them wrong. We started wasting a lot less and cut how much water we used by a lot. Especially if you consider excess eating as waste as I do.

Our civil engineers were recording the amount of organic waste we were outputting and they said it dropped significantly.
 
2012-07-11 12:58:15 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Keeping you stupid is a government imperative.


Dr. Mojo PhD: The Opposition has forecast large boost in prices

[which will of course happen in the future] on account of the carbon tax, but Mr Swan said in his weekly economic note that the levy is expected to boost inflation rate [which will also of course happen in the future] by only 0.7 per cent

HotIgneous Intruder: Ask the Aussies about their carbon tax, which has been used as an excuse to raise prices on everything from fuel to food

[stated as if it has already happened] and has even increased the inflation rate [stated as if it has already happened, and fails to mention the 'by 0.7 per cent' part].

Looks like they certainly succeeded with you. Why, by God, you aren't even located in Australia, and the Australian opposition can tell you something will happen tomorrow and you'll come along and act like it happened yesterday.

Remember, boys and girls. Internal contradictions. Patterns of behaviour.
 
2012-07-11 12:58:15 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: 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.


It's impossible to "convince you" because you're not actually having an argument about scientific evidence and objective facts related to climate dynamics. You're flailing against a perceived attack on socio-politico-economic identity markers that have nothing to do with things like Milankovitch cycles, radiative forcings, or the carbon cycle.

But you cannot or will not see that the two are separate issues. The fact that humans are warming the planet through (among other things) our use of fossil fuels is inextricably associated in your mind with disrupting (or worse! regulating) a lifestyle based on the exploitation of fossil fuels.

That's why you keep saying cause and effect don't matter. To you, they don't.

To people who aren't childishly lashing out at perceived threats to their way of life, cause and effect certainly matter, and the evidence for anthropogenic warming is robust, consillent, and compelling.
 
2012-07-11 01:00:42 PM  

Jon Snow: t's impossible to "convince you" because you're not actually having an argument about scientific evidence and objective facts related to climate dynamics. You're flailing against a perceived attack on socio-politico-economic identity markers that have nothing to do with things like Milankovitch cycles, radiative forcings, or the carbon cycle.

But you cannot or will not see that the two are separate issues. The fact that humans are warming the planet through (among other things) our use of fossil fuels is inextricably associated in your mind with disrupting (or worse! regulating) a lifestyle based on the exploitation of fossil fuels.

That's why you keep saying cause and effect don't matter. To you, they don't.


Typed before I saw:

HotIgneous Intruder: AGW is an ideological argument.


Beautiful.
 
2012-07-11 01:02:25 PM  
People arguing at shadows on the walls that look like things they fear.

I'll leave you with Naomi Klein on the topic, as I've done before:

... if the arguments which make the case for global warming are accepted, then our whole way of life--primarily, its reliance upon non-renewable energy sources like oil for easy mobility, cheap goods, anxious consumption, irresponsible levels of waste, and a casual and inattentive relationship with the planet we live upon and the food from it which we eat--must change. Capitalism must change. And that, Klein argued, I think rightly, is a stark challenge that most self-identified liberals (though maybe "neoliberals" would be a better description) and environmentalists just don't appreciate.

...And so, Klein called for starkness--for recognizing that global warming is not something that can be fixed or moderated or addressed by us; it is, rather, something that, if we want to survive as a civilization and a species, demands something of us. She said her tentative title for her next book is "What Climate Change is Telling Us About How We Must Evolve"....and she credits the global warming deniers for at least recognizing that demand for what it implies. In the same way powerful corporate interests attack unions, push for deregulation, insist on the legitimacy of their habits of consumption, praise globalization, denounce all forms of protectionism, and defend their wealth from the demands of the commons, they also fight the science of global warming tooth and nail--because to give it credence would be to invite a fundamental economic transformation, one that would undercut their position of privilege entirely.
 
2012-07-11 01:03:18 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Dr. Mojo PhD: When was the carbon tax introduced? Why, July 1st, 2012, of course. That's right, boys and girls, our economic expert (who is also an expert on the Dunning-Kruger effect, for real yo) assures us that he has rigorously studied Australia's economy over the past, um, 11 days.

Uh no. I cut in a link. Yoo decide. You're the genius.


Yes yes, you certainly didn't verifiably state that it has already raised prices and inflation rates as a certainty when the reality is that these are government opposition forecasts or anything. People totally can't look that up or anything. I know, I know, linking to it is so primitive, you'd think I was trying to invent the wheel or fire or something by linking back to your own embarrassing statements. Next thing you know I'll be screenshotting that post to use in future threads concerning your credibility and it'll be just like that time I vandalized Ugh's cave by adding a giant boner to mammoth he took months to paint in guano.

Immediately following up your breathless statement of the Aus gov't opposition's forecasts as if they were things that had already happened (in your massive knowledge that spans the 11 days since the tax was introduced) with an equally breathless paean to how governments want to keep us stupid was a nice touch, I must admit.

It takes a certain level of hellishly terrifying, 'does this guy seriously breathe my air?' level of stupid to actually lack that much introspection.
 
2012-07-11 01:04:02 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder:
So don't conflate other social issues with use of fossil fuels, upon which our entire grand experiment is built and upon which our entire standard of living (such as it is) depends.

If you want a preview of the natural result of CO2 arm-waving alarmism, you need to cut your energy use in half. Immediately. That means half the heating, half the driving and half the electricity use. Or else simply take half your income and burn it on the hibachi grill. That would nicely simulate the social impact of carbon controls. Let me know how that turns out for you.


Not necessarily. Electricity isn't always fossil fuel based. I want electricity that isn't via Nuclear power which already makes 20% of our grid. France's grid is around 80%. There goes the heating and electric part. The driving can be electric based too, but since I don't have that kind of car please know that I was wise enough to find an office job a mile away from my house in a city that has a lot of public transportation. In that case I felt it socially responsible, and much more convenient, to make a change in my life.
 
2012-07-11 01:05:02 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: See? AGW is an ideological argument.
Strictly abstract.


No it isn't. You're the one who started posting your paranoid political views.
 
2012-07-11 01:05:30 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: People arguing at shadows on the walls that look like things they fear.


Dr. Mojo PhD: The Opposition has forecast large boost in prices on account of the carbon tax, but Mr Swan said in his weekly economic note that the levy is expected to boost inflation rate by only 0.7 per cent


HotIgneous Intruder: Ask the Aussies about their carbon tax, which has been used as an excuse to raise prices on everything from fuel to food and has even increased the inflation rate.


What's it like, having absolutely zero introspection? What's it like seeing the shadow of something you fear -- raising prices and inflation rates as a mere spectre in the future -- and so pissing your pants in terror you act as if it is a foregone conclusion?
 
2012-07-11 01:05:44 PM  

Jon Snow: Jon Snow: t's impossible to "convince you" because you're not actually having an argument about scientific evidence and objective facts related to climate dynamics. You're flailing against a perceived attack on socio-politico-economic identity markers that have nothing to do with things like Milankovitch cycles, radiative forcings, or the carbon cycle.

But you cannot or will not see that the two are separate issues. The fact that humans are warming the planet through (among other things) our use of fossil fuels is inextricably associated in your mind with disrupting (or worse! regulating) a lifestyle based on the exploitation of fossil fuels.

That's why you keep saying cause and effect don't matter. To you, they don't.


NO. They don't matter to anyone. We all just want to keep living like this or better, forever and ever. It's pipe dream. Leave it to the "scientists" to step in and decide who lives and who dies, literally.
Dr. Strangelove, anyone.
 
2012-07-11 01:06:46 PM  

s2s2s2: serial_crusher: Hmm, it's almost as if theories on environmental change are challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced?!

But let's live according to it, then change with it?


What should we live according to, if not the current scientific thinking?

Wishful thinking?
 
2012-07-11 01:07:31 PM  
Dos anybody have any good links to the real cost associated with adaptation vs. mitigation starting now or in the near future, as well as comparing those with the cost of ignoring the issue completely?

My personal, nonscientific opinion is that we're probably past the point where trying to undo the damage is less expensive than learning to live with it, thanks to the inaction caused by politics thus far.
 
2012-07-11 01:08:19 PM  

thecpt:
Not necessarily. Electricity isn't always fossil fuel based. I want electricity that isn't via Nuclear power which already makes 20% of our grid. France's grid is around 80%. There goes the heating and electric part. The driving can be electric based too, but since I don't have that kind of car please know that I was wise enough to find an office job a mile away from my house in a city that has a lot of public transportation. In that case I felt it socially responsible, and much more convenient, to make a change in my life.


Are you against all nuclear power? Or just uranium-fueled nuclear power?

I can't find much on heat output of a thorium reactor, but most of the other variables are a lot better than uranium.
 
2012-07-11 01:08:39 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: I'll leave you with Naomi Klein on the topic, as I've done before:

... if the arguments which make the case for global warming are accepted, then our whole way of life--primarily, its reliance upon non-renewable energy sources like oil for easy mobility, cheap goods, anxious consumption, irresponsible levels of waste, and a casual and inattentive relationship with the planet we live upon and the food from it which we eat--must change. Capitalism must change. And that, Klein argued


Does Naomi Klein normally refer to herself in the third person, or when you attempted an appeal to authority before fleeing the thread in cowardice, having a breakdown, were you so busy tripping over your own feet that you couldn't bother typing "I'll leave you with a random blogger with a stock blogspot template musing on something Naomi Klein once said which I will now make my own argument from"?

There's a difference. You're incompetent, I don't expect you to know the difference, but I can certainly tell you that in the circles where intelligent people travel, it's not really considered (how should I put this?) ... sane if you do something like saying "And now, before I run from any further argument because I can't actually make one, I'll leave you with a quote from the Bible" -- and then you quote the Communist Manifesto, because hey, Marx mentions religion in it, right?
 
2012-07-11 01:09:51 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: You're flailing against a perceived attack on socio-politico-economic identity markers that have nothing to do with things like Milankovitch cycles, radiative forcings, or the carbon cycle.


But none of those causes matters a fark to someone who can't afford food.
THAT is why you miss the social bus, Jon. You've spent your life counting the rings on the tree that fell and killed your child.
 
2012-07-11 01:11:18 PM  

Jon Snow: 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.


Color me shocked that HII continues to ignore the evidence placed in front of him and argue that no one has presented solutions. He always seems to forget that other people have the ability to scroll up and read what was posted.

Why, that's something you'd expect from a shill and a liar.

So, HII, why wouldn't the stabilization wedges concept work in practice?
 
2012-07-11 01:13:40 PM  

wippit:

Are you against all nuclear power? Or just uranium-fueled nuclear power?

I can't find much on heat output of a thorium reactor, but most of the other variables are a lot better than uranium.


Confused. Maybe my wording was the bad. I want electricity that isn't fossil fuel based via the use of Nuclear Energy. I think their heat output is negligible in the cause of what the crisis is. I find fast breeders to be a little scary, but I'll allow it.
 
2012-07-11 01:13:45 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: NO. They don't matter to anyone. We all just want to keep living like this or better, forever and ever. It's pipe dream.


You said you were leaving. It's pretty cute how you need the last word, how even after promising to take your ball and go home you can't.

HotIgneous Intruder: Dr. Strangelove, anyone.

[...was fiction.]

HotIgneous Intruder: People arguing at shadows on the walls that look like things they fear.


LOLDELUSIONAL. Again, seriously, how's that lack of introspection and self-awareness working out for you?
 
2012-07-11 01:15:21 PM  

gilgigamesh: lordaction: The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then a cult. It is nothing more then a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones. Any idiot can figure this out but nobody said liberals had critical thinking skills.

You're suggesting some cabal with semi-religious overtones that incorporates virtually every climatologist, which for some unfathomable reason has as its sole agenda enriching poorer nations at the expense of richer ones, and you still have the temerity to sit there and smugly lecture the rest of us about critical thinking?


You are right, sure it is not a conspiracy. That is why they deleted all their emails and research..right?
 
2012-07-11 01:16:06 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: But none of those causes matters a fark to someone who can't afford food.


So you've now gone from "B-B-BUT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE! HOAX!" to "IT'S REAL! IT'S REAL AND NONE OF IT MATTERS! THINK OF THE CHILDREN THAT WON'T BE ABLE TO WORK BREAKING COAL TO BUY THEIR SANDWICHES ANY MORE!"

Great.
 
2012-07-11 01:16:17 PM  

wxboy: Dos anybody have any good links to the real cost associated with adaptation vs. mitigation starting now or in the near future, as well as comparing those with the cost of ignoring the issue completely?

My personal, nonscientific opinion is that we're probably past the point where trying to undo the damage is less expensive than learning to live with it, thanks to the inaction caused by politics thus far.


Your opinion is the opposite of what was concluded by the British Government's study on this topic, the Stern Review. To my knowledge, it's the most comprehensive study conducted on the economic impacts of mitigation (reducing emissions to limit the magnitude of climate change) and adaptation (doing nothing and dealing with consequences as they arise). Link to executive summary here. From it:
"The Review estimates that if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action - reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change - can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year."
 
2012-07-11 01:16:26 PM  

Jon Snow: Fractional attribution of extreme weather events != the robust consensus that anthropogenic radiative forcings (mainly but not only long-lived GHGs like CO2 and CH4) have altered the planetary energy balance, causing us to warm towards a higher equilibrium.

You're welcome.

HotIgneous Intruder: We're in an interglacial warming period.

How many dozens of times does it need to be pointed out to you that glacial-interglacial cycling is driven by orbital forcing, that orbital forcing has been in the direction of cooling for the past several thousands of years, and that anthropogenic warming has sharply reversed this cooling and is pushing us in an entirely new direction?

lordaction: The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then a cult. It is nothing more then a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones. Any idiot can figure this out but nobody said liberals had critical thinking skills.

[i.imgur.com image 500x399]


The cartoon is perfect. That is exactly what I think. The only thing missing is I am pretty sure the Jews are involved somehow. They probably own the banks that will process the "carbon credits" or something.
 
2012-07-11 01:17:42 PM  

wxboy: Dos anybody have any good links to the real cost associated with adaptation vs. mitigation starting now or in the near future, as well as comparing those with the cost of ignoring the issue completely?

My personal, nonscientific opinion is that we're probably past the point where trying to undo the damage is less expensive than learning to live with it, thanks to the inaction caused by politics thus far.


Here's a link that's a little bit of what you're talking about. It at least gives a CBO estimate on the costs for emission reductions.

Link

It's actually extremely hard to figure out what the economic impact of reduction programs will be. The knock-on effects could be pretty harsh if individual firm reduction costs are high. That being said the EPA's acid rain program only costs about a fourth of what was forecast. Europe's reduction program has also come in under cost. Imagine that, government programs that fall under their cost estimates!
 
2012-07-11 01:18:49 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: I'll leave you with Naomi Klein on the topic


1) That's someone else's shiatty blog, not Naomi Klein.
2) I'll go ahead and bet that you aren't really leaving us.
 
2012-07-11 01:18:57 PM  

lordaction: You are right, sure it is not a conspiracy. That is why they deleted all their emails and research..right?


They deleted all their emails and research. Every one. All of them. Thousands and thousands of scientists woke up one day and said, "I'm going to delete my emails and research."

It was a conspiracy to do nothing, and lordaction, so fiercely wed to reality as he is, has blown the cover right off this lunatic fiction that happened in a dream he had last week after reading a Michael "I believe in spoon bending and auras" Crichton novel and eating pizza with a mysterious, semen-like substance on it. Oh, and meth. Lots and lots of meth.
 
2012-07-11 01:21:56 PM  

lordaction: You are right, sure it is not a conspiracy. That is why they deleted all their emails and research..right?


Sorry, you're far too late to get involved now with that weaksauce lying. HotIgneous Intruder has already claimed all the derp and there's none left for you. Better luck next thread.
 
2012-07-11 01:22:31 PM  

chimp_ninja: wxboy: Dos anybody have any good links to the real cost associated with adaptation vs. mitigation starting now or in the near future, as well as comparing those with the cost of ignoring the issue completely?

My personal, nonscientific opinion is that we're probably past the point where trying to undo the damage is less expensive than learning to live with it, thanks to the inaction caused by politics thus far.

Your opinion is the opposite of what was concluded by the British Government's study on this topic, the Stern Review. To my knowledge, it's the most comprehensive study conducted on the economic impacts of mitigation (reducing emissions to limit the magnitude of climate change) and adaptation (doing nothing and dealing with consequences as they arise). Link to executive summary here. From it:
"The Review estimates that if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action - reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change - can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year."


Well, I've never been accused of being an optimist...
 
2012-07-11 01:23:35 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: But none of those causes matters a fark to someone who can't afford food.


As cited above, the costs of inaction exceed the costs of mitigation. You continue to commit the fallacy that "doing nothing" is always free and without consequence.

So, by your assertion that we should decide things based on someone who cannot afford food, we should pursue emissions reduction strategies because it will limit damage to agriculture, thus lowering long-term food prices.
 
2012-07-11 01:24:02 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: HotIgneous Intruder: Dr. Strangelove, anyone. [...was fiction.]


Only a scientist would note that Dr. Strangelove was fiction as part of a refutation. It was also satire, which holds stereotypical behaviors up for ridicule and shaming.

The rest of us understand that and most of the rest of us understand that fiction is a lie that tells the truth. In fact, there's more truth in fiction than there is in nonfiction. If you want politicized lies, look no further than the scientific academic community. Lemmings and wholly political animals, much as they would deny it.

Dr. Strangelove: if the shoe fits, wear it.
Humans: never trust them, especially the ones higher up in hierarchical structures. They lie like dogs to advance their agendas.
 
2012-07-11 01:25:52 PM  

wxboy: Dos anybody have any good links to the real cost associated with adaptation vs. mitigation starting now or in the near future, as well as comparing those with the cost of ignoring the issue completely?


I will dig some up.

My personal, nonscientific opinion is that we're probably past the point where trying to undo the damage is less expensive than learning to live with it, thanks to the inaction caused by politics thus far.

No one (in terms of proposed international agreements) is "trying to undo the damage". Basically every plan that has international support allows for further warming up to a point.

I'll say that again, because climate denialists have so polluted (if you'll pardon the expression) the discourse that most people think intergovernmental agreements are focusing on reducing CO2 levels below what they are now. In fact, all of these proposals are aiming at allowing them to increase further, to ~450-600ppm (depending on which plans we're talking about) before stabilizing.

Now, we've learned a lot in the past 10 years about long term ice sheet stability, non-climatic consequences (e.g. ocean acidification), and have failed to see some of the assumed positives of a small amount of warming (crops haven't benefited as some expected)- all of which are hinting that aiming for a doubling of preindustrial CO2 isn't in our longterm interests. But as far as I know, that's still the plan most treaties are aiming for.

The "learning to live with it" part of your statement is quite questionable. If we pursue unchecked emissions, what level of sea level rise do we "learn to live with"? One meter? We might see that by end of century. Two meters? Sea level rise is expected to be nonlinear once ice sheets really start going. We know that multimeter SLR on centennial timescales is possible from the paleo record.

How do you "learn to live with" SLR that has no effective upper level?

The costs of hitting a specific target increase the longer we wait to pursue mitigation. However, the costs of avoiding the worsts impacts are well below the costs of enduring them for some time to come.
 
2012-07-11 01:27:36 PM  

wxboy: Well, I've never been accused of being an optimist...


True, but the Stern Review dovetails with nearly every pollution study-- it's always cheaper to control chemicals at a source (concentrated, localized, more predictable) than it is to address them after release (diluted, widespread, less predictable).

Look at asbestos, or whatever your favorite relevant story is. Compare the cost of using other materials (often more expensive ones-- asbestos was dirt cheap) to just continuing to build with asbestos and paying for cleanups when you need to take buildings down later.
 
2012-07-11 01:29:23 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: They lie like dogs to advance their agendas.


Because Newton, Einstein, Hawking, Watson & Crick, Lorenz, etc. etc. were all dirty liars...

Especially that Einstein, advancing his agenda of relativity that bastard.
 
2012-07-11 01:29:30 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: If you want politicized lies, look no further than the scientific academic community.


weknowmemes.com

I thought you were "leaving us"?
 
2012-07-11 01:29:38 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Only a scientist would note that Dr. Strangelove was fiction as part of a refutation.


Only a moron would miss the point that a person who barks about jumping at shadows is pissing his pants over fiction.

HotIgneous Intruder: It was also satire, which holds stereotypical behaviors up for ridicule and shaming.


Stereotypical behaviours like a pie fight. You know, because if there's one thing world leaders do, it's pie fight.

You missed the "hyperbole" part of Dr. Strangelove there, chief.
 
2012-07-11 01:34:19 PM  

Jon Snow: Fractional attribution of extreme weather events != the robust consensus that anthropogenic radiative forcings (mainly but not only long-lived GHGs like CO2 and CH4) have altered the planetary energy balance, causing us to warm towards a higher equilibrium.

You're welcome.

HotIgneous Intruder: We're in an interglacial warming period.

How many dozens of times does it need to be pointed out to you that glacial-interglacial cycling is driven by orbital forcing, that orbital forcing has been in the direction of cooling for the past several thousands of years, and that anthropogenic warming has sharply reversed this cooling and is pushing us in an entirely new direction?

lordaction: The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then a cult. It is nothing more then a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones. Any idiot can figure this out but nobody said liberals had critical thinking skills.

[i.imgur.com image 500x399]


So stealing this pic and posting to FB. Thanks, Jon Snow. Turns out you DO know something ;)
 
2012-07-11 01:34:30 PM  

chimp_ninja: HotIgneous Intruder: But none of those causes matters a fark to someone who can't afford food.

As cited above, the costs of inaction exceed the costs of mitigation. You continue to commit the fallacy that "doing nothing" is always free and without consequence.

So, by your assertion that we should decide things based on someone who cannot afford food, we should pursue emissions reduction strategies because it will limit damage to agriculture, thus lowering long-term food prices.


In this case, doing nothing is certainly cheaper than doing something and having that something serve no other purpose than degrade quality of life, then having to mitigate THAT unintended consequence.

It's 2012 and the AGWers can't even convince people WHY the warming is happening, let alone conjure up solutions that will work both mechanically and politically. That's why they're idiots.

If they were actual intelligent people, they would use whatever simplest argument they could to prove that warming exists, glacier melting, formation of the Chesapeake Bay, whatever best and simplest concrete examples they could use, to get the social science ball rolling to form up some decent mitigation plan. But no. They post all sorts of abstracted crap, walls of graphs, nothing that the common person can grasp intellectually, but all of it open to argument and back-biting even among academics.

If AGW were real beyond a shodow of a doubt, there wouldn't be any question and the argument would be so irrefutable that there would be no argument, just agreement, such as that water is wet, and there would be instant accord as to what to do.

But the money-grubbers are into it. An honest solution will involve exactly zero dollars of other people's money from any source, taxes, carbon trading, etc.
The entire argument is corrupt and ideological.

The planet is warming.
Get over it.
Get a hobby.
Have a farking beer.
Get laid.

For gawd's sake.
 
2012-07-11 01:36:04 PM  

chimp_ninja: So, by your assertion that we should decide things based on someone who cannot afford food, we should pursue emissions reduction strategies because it will limit damage to agriculture, thus lowering long-term food prices.


That depends on if that person who cannot afford food is a member of your family.
 
2012-07-11 01:38:37 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: In this case, doing nothing is certainly cheaper than doing something and having that something serve no other purpose than degrade quality of life, then having to mitigate THAT unintended consequence.


Except for the scientific evidence, summarized above, that you are lying about "no other purpose". There is a clear link between greenhouse emissions and climate change. You can't simply ignore it because you don't like it.

HotIgneous Intruder: If you want politicized lies, look no further than the scientific academic community.


I'm going to quote this again, because it's that emblematic of what a backwards Luddite you are.
 
2012-07-11 01:39:59 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: chimp_ninja: So, by your assertion that we should decide things based on someone who cannot afford food, we should pursue emissions reduction strategies because it will limit damage to agriculture, thus lowering long-term food prices.

That depends on if that person who cannot afford food is a member of your family.


I will echo whoever asked earlier: Are you drunk? There's no angle where your responses make any sense.

Also, weren't you leaving?
 
2012-07-11 01:41:09 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: there's more truth in fiction than there is in nonfiction. If you want politicized lies, look no further than the scientific academic community. Lemmings and wholly political animals, much as they would deny it.

Humans: never trust them, especially the ones higher up in hierarchical structures. They lie like dogs to advance their agendas.


So, I am:

- Lying about humans causing climate change to advance my agenda
- This agenda consists basically of destroying the economy
- The same economy that supports the "scientific academic community" of "lemmings and wholly political animals"
- But "the oligarchs", which are a different kind of political animal, won't let me
- Because poor people eat coal
- And I am a child-murderer because science

Did I miss anything?

Oh, right.

And we're totally warming right now because of orbital forcing even though no one knows why we're warming and it doesn't matter except it really is orbital forcing because The Chesapeake Bay.

I think that covers it.
 
2012-07-11 01:46:54 PM  

wxboy: Dos anybody have any good links to the real cost associated with adaptation vs. mitigation starting now or in the near future, as well as comparing those with the cost of ignoring the issue completely?


There is a lot of work on mitigation, usually phrased in terms of cost-benefit analysis (comparing the cost of mitigation to the damages avoided by not ignoring the issue). This is often summarized as a "social cost of carbon", e.g. this journal issue. A good book on the economics of climate change is Nordhaus' A Question of Balance (draft).

There still isn't a big literature on adaptation costs, because there are more diverse options to analyze than just "reducing CO2 emissions", and because it requires a more detailed local-level analysis. The results are something of a patchwork. But see Füssel (2010), de Bruin et al. (2009), Felgenhauer and de Bruin (2009), Parry et al. (2009), and Patt et al. (2010).
 
2012-07-11 01:46:56 PM  
And remember, it snows. Whatever you tell yourself to justify ignoring the elephant in the room. You don't believe facts because ignorance and complacency is easier. So you're dumb AND lazy, just the kind of person who deserves the environmental hellhole you're helping create. I'm just tired of trying to be diplomatic about this. You're stupid. Get a clue or get lost. Pick one.
 
2012-07-11 01:58:45 PM  

Jon Snow: 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?


So it's ok to dismiss this study because it's just localized cooling, but one tree ring study of a half dozen trees in Yamal is worthy of winning Al Gore and Mann et al. a Nobel Peace Prize and totally proves unprecedented man-made global warming, amirite?
 
2012-07-11 02:07:13 PM  

DesertDemonWY: So it's ok to dismiss this study because it's just localized cooling, but one tree ring study of a half dozen trees in Yamal is worthy of winning Al Gore and Mann et al. a Nobel Peace Prize and hundreds of studies using data from a plethora of sources and models which are validated against several phenomena leading to an almost total consensus amoung climate scientists totally proves unprecedented man-made global warming


FTFY
 
2012-07-11 02:16:15 PM  

DesertDemonWY: So it's ok to dismiss this study because it's just localized cooling


I don't "dismiss" that paper. I am simply pointing out that the paper is a regional reconstruction, rather than a hemispheric or global one, and that orbital cooling in such a region is not exactly a shocking result. And that it has literally nothing to do with the reality of anthropogenic warming.

but one tree ring study of a half dozen trees in Yamal is worthy of winning Al Gore

Why is it that the only people who bring up Al Gore are idiotic mouthbreathers such as yourself? Have you ever seen me cite Gore as an authority on anything?

and Mann et al.

Are you under the assumption that Michael Mann is the originator of the Yamal reconstruction? Are you just throwing out names you've read on blogs?

a Nobel Peace Prize

The IPCC AR4 relied on a multitude of reconstructions, including borehole temp. data which didn't use any tree rings, let alone the Yamal reconstruction.

totally proves unprecedented man-made global warming, amirite?

Paleoclimatic reconstructions have nothing to do with attribution of present warming. In terms of the "unprecedented" aspect, again, multiple lines of evidence from boreholes, glacier length, and other non-dendro sources all show the same picture. Have fun farking that strawchicken, though.
 
2012-07-11 02:17:07 PM  

MagnesDrachen: And remember, it snows. Whatever you tell yourself to justify ignoring the elephant in the room. You don't believe facts because ignorance and complacency is easier. So you're dumb AND lazy, just the kind of person who deserves the environmental hellhole you're helping create. I'm just tired of trying to be diplomatic about this. You're stupid. Get a clue or get lost. Pick one.


less that one degree Celsius since 1850 and you are looking for an environmental hellhole?? You may not be lazy, but you sure as hell as as dumb as a brick.

with apologies to all real bricks.
 
2012-07-11 02:17:46 PM  

vpb: So if they aren't 100% sure that this particular weather event is the result of climate change that somehow means that there isn't a consensus among scientists on climate change?

I know people who would think that was a perfectly logical argument.


It's a good thing that cancer, and its treatments, aren't handled the same way. Better to be very, very sure you've got perfect data, and then spend money way later so you don't have to spend too much and inconvenience yourself. Taking the precautionary approach vs irreversible death with some reasonable science backing you, and spending money now just in case there's no going back, is just poor planning for a speci-- I mean, individual.

Oh wait...
 
2012-07-11 02:18:49 PM  

Jon Snow: DesertDemonWY: So it's ok to dismiss this study because it's just localized cooling

I don't "dismiss" that paper. I am simply pointing out that the paper is a regional reconstruction, rather than a hemispheric or global one, and that orbital cooling in such a region is not exactly a shocking result. And that it has literally nothing to do with the reality of anthropogenic warming.

but one tree ring study of a half dozen trees in Yamal is worthy of winning Al Gore

Why is it that the only people who bring up Al Gore are idiotic mouthbreathers such as yourself? Have you ever seen me cite Gore as an authority on anything?

and Mann et al.

Are you under the assumption that Michael Mann is the originator of the Yamal reconstruction? Are you just throwing out names you've read on blogs?

a Nobel Peace Prize

The IPCC AR4 relied on a multitude of reconstructions, including borehole temp. data which didn't use any tree rings, let alone the Yamal reconstruction.

totally proves unprecedented man-made global warming, amirite?

Paleoclimatic reconstructions have nothing to do with attribution of present warming. In terms of the "unprecedented" aspect, again, multiple lines of evidence from boreholes, glacier length, and other non-dendro sources all show the same picture. Have fun farking that strawchicken, though.


why list all of that - PROXY DATA is what it is. Not quite a Scientific WildAss Guess, but it is close.
 
2012-07-11 02:21:21 PM  

ThreadSinger: vpb: So if they aren't 100% sure that this particular weather event is the result of climate change that somehow means that there isn't a consensus among scientists on climate change?

I know people who would think that was a perfectly logical argument.

It's a good thing that cancer, and its treatments, aren't handled the same way. Better to be very, very sure you've got perfect data, and then spend money way later so you don't have to spend too much and inconvenience yourself. Taking the precautionary approach vs irreversible death with some reasonable science backing you, and spending money now just in case there's no going back, is just poor planning for a speci-- I mean, individual.

Oh wait...


Most cancer, if left untreated, is fatal. It often requires some sort of radical approach to treat it. Global Warming is not as serious as cancer.

Less than ONE DEGREE Celsius since 1850. PANIC, everybody PANIC


dumbass
 
2012-07-11 02:26:54 PM  

DesertDemonWY: So it's ok to dismiss this study because it's just localized cooling, but one tree ring study of a half dozen trees in Yamal is worthy of winning Al Gore and Mann et al. a Nobel Peace Prize and totally proves unprecedented man-made global warming, amirite?


The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

If they gave the Peace Prize for, and I quote, "their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change," then it must flow from that that the Yamal study was the entire font of knowledge in man-made climate change. It was this study you identify as being the cause of the award since you refer to it specifically. You believe this, yes?

You believe the entire Nobel Prize committee awarded Al Gore and Michael Mann a Nobel peace prize based solely on the work of Keith Briffa? Why would they not award one to Keith Briffa? Why would it be "Mann et al" and not "Briffa et al" since it's Briffa's Yamal study you're quoting?

Don't worry, I don't expect serious answers. We all know you deliberately lied. We all know you deliberately lied in claiming it was awarded for a singular study Mann had nothing to do with. We all know you just wanted to touch on the boogeymen of Al Gore and Michael Mann. We all know you're so ignorant you have no idea who Keith Briffa actually is. We all know you simply deliberately lied and wanted to claim that the Nobel Prize was awarded for a singular study rather than the better part of a century's worth of thousands and thousands of studies.

DesertDemonWY: Proud to be a pathological liar. Proud of subvert the truth and accuse others of doing the same. Proud to be a sociopath.
 
2012-07-11 02:32:52 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: DesertDemonWY: So it's ok to dismiss this study because it's just localized cooling, but one tree ring study of a half dozen trees in Yamal is worthy of winning Al Gore and Mann et al. a Nobel Peace Prize and totally proves unprecedented man-made global warming, amirite?

The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

If they gave the Peace Prize for, and I quote, "their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change," then it must flow from that that the Yamal study was the entire font of knowledge in man-made climate change. It was this study you identify as being the cause of the award since you refer to it specifically. You believe this, yes?

You believe the entire Nobel Prize committee awarded Al Gore and Michael Mann a Nobel peace prize based solely on the work of Keith Briffa? Why would they not award one to Keith Briffa? Why would it be "Mann et al" and not "Briffa et al" since it's Briffa's Yamal study you're quoting?

Don't worry, I don't expect serious answers. We all know you deliberately lied. We all know you deliberately lied in claiming it was awarded for a singular study Mann had nothing to do with. We all know you just wanted to touch on the boogeymen of Al Gore and Michael Mann. We all know you're so ignorant you have no idea who Keith Briffa actually is. We all know you simply deliberately lied and wanted to claim that the Nobel Prize was awarded for a singular study rather than the better part of a century's worth of thousands and thousands of studies.

DesertDemonWY: Proud to be a pathological liar. Proud of subvert the truth and accuse others of doing the same. Proud to be a sociopath.


i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-07-11 02:35:43 PM  
TFA's Headline:
2011 Texas drought was 20 times more likely due to warming, study says

TFA:
The Texas component of the study compared rainfall and temperature data from La Nina years in the 1960s (1964, 1967, 1968) to present day (2011 data was not yet available so the scientists used 2008, another strong La Nina year.)

That's some good sciencing there, Lou.
 
2012-07-11 02:44:05 PM  

chuckufarlie: Less than ONE DEGREE Celsius since 1850. PANIC, everybody PANIC


The difference of one degree celcius is whether ice melts or stays solid. But hey, it sounds small, right chuckufarlie? I mean it's just one degree, just like one bullet to the back of the head is just one bullet everybody panic, right? No big d. It's just one heart attack. It's just one tumour.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, known despiser of science and evidence and self-admitted shill chuckufarlie is committing a very popular form of logical abortion here. We're all familiar with this form of special pleading, wherein something is plead on the basis that it appears small (ONE WHOLE DEGREE!)

Notice how chuckufarlie never actually argues how many degrees would be necessary to alter anything significantly? Or what one degree represents? Or why one degree is insignificant? (This is why I was able to effectively and utterly destroy him by merely pointing out that "one degree" is the difference between ice and water).

Boys and girls, make an experiment that known hater of science chuckufarlie is incapable of making. Take a centigrade thermometer. Next to each degree, in pen, draw three zeroes, so it runs thus: 0 -- 1000 -- 2000 ... 100,000 instead of 0 -- 1 -- 2 ... 100

Now repeat what chuckufarlie said, but this time substituting in our totally-equivalent-in-what-they-quantify-but-differently-named degrees: ONE THOUSAND DEGREES Celsius since 1850!

It's the same data, boys and girls. It's the exact same data. But said like that, doesn't it sound so much bigger? Doesn't it sound like SCAREMONGERING instead of minimization? That's because it is, boys and girls. Because what is important is not one or one thousand or one million degrees. It's what that quanta of degrees represent. Notice how chuckufarlie never addressed that? It's because he hates science, and critical thinking.

You've just engaged in critical thinking that chuckufarlie has demonstrated he's either a) maliciously unwilling or b) negligently incapable of engaging in, boys and girls. Under any possible circumstances, he must be illogical, but under no circumstances can what he has done make sense. Ask yourself, children, since the evidence shows that (and we know it does), do you think chuckufarlie is capable of commenting on anything involving science and free thought? They are much, much, much more complicated than simply conducting the thought experiment chuckufarlie cannot understand.

Children, if you saw a classmate unable to add 2+2, would you trust this classmate to tell you about trigonometry? Or calculus? Or physics? It's not wrong to say no. The evidence says not to.
 
2012-07-11 02:46:23 PM  

SevenizGud: TFA


Considering that 2008 was a stronger La Niña, it's only going to strengthen their conclusions when the 2011 data become available. By using a weaker but similar La Niña year, they were being conservative.

SevenizGud: That's some good sciencing there, Lou.


Brain harder.
 
2012-07-11 02:49:02 PM  
Oh look, subby accidentally submitted his headline twice.

i.minus.com
 
2012-07-11 02:51:22 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: chuckufarlie: Less than ONE DEGREE Celsius since 1850. PANIC, everybody PANIC

The difference of one degree celcius is whether ice melts or stays solid. But hey, it sounds small, right chuckufarlie? I mean it's just one degree, just like one bullet to the back of the head is just one bullet everybody panic, right? No big d. It's just one heart attack. It's just one tumour.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, known despiser of science and evidence and self-admitted shill chuckufarlie is committing a very popular form of logical abortion here. We're all familiar with this form of special pleading, wherein something is plead on the basis that it appears small (ONE WHOLE DEGREE!)

Notice how chuckufarlie never actually argues how many degrees would be necessary to alter anything significantly? Or what one degree represents? Or why one degree is insignificant? (This is why I was able to effectively and utterly destroy him by merely pointing out that "one degree" is the difference between ice and water).

Boys and girls, make an experiment that known hater of science chuckufarlie is incapable of making. Take a centigrade thermometer. Next to each degree, in pen, draw three zeroes, so it runs thus: 0 -- 1000 -- 2000 ... 100,000 instead of 0 -- 1 -- 2 ... 100

Now repeat what chuckufarlie said, but this time substituting in our totally-equivalent-in-what-they-quantify-but-differently-named degrees: ONE THOUSAND DEGREES Celsius since 1850!

It's the same data, boys and girls. It's the exact same data. But said like that, doesn't it sound so much bigger? Doesn't it sound like SCAREMONGERING instead of minimization? That's because it is, boys and girls. Because what is important is not one or one thousand or one million degrees. It's what that quanta of degrees represent. Notice how chuckufarlie never addressed that? It's because he hates science, and critical thinking.

You've just engaged in critical thinking that chuckufarlie has demonstrated he's either a) maliciously u ...


You're just jealous that you weren't home skooled like he was.
 
2012-07-11 02:56:34 PM  

lordaction: The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then a cult. It is nothing more then a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones. Any idiot can figure this out but nobody said liberals had critical thinking skills.


Any time your theory hinges on a broad conspiracy of scientists, world wide, to keep The Truth out of your hands for some nefarious purpose, you really need to give the alternative "I'm a farking idiot" theory more consideration.

/ I bite for trolls
 
2012-07-11 02:58:43 PM  

chuckufarlie: i3.kym-cdn.com


Boys and girls, notice how chuckufarlie could not refute a single thing I said? Notice how he addressed nothing in my post at hand? Boys and girls, I again point out this post I made earlier:

Dr. Mojo PhD: We refer to those as patterns of behaviour.


Patterns of behaviour. Just like we saw in my earlier post about chuckufarlie attempting to minimize the impact of things by using small-sounding numbers without explaining why those numbers are insignificant, we can see him doing the same thing. In critical thinking, logic, and rhetoric, we refer to this as ignoring the substance (or meat) of the argument.

Haters of logic and critical thinking employ various tactics of irrelevancy to do this. Red herring, fallacy ad hominem, etc.

Nothing chuckufarlie posted addresses the fact that DesertDemonWY made a post about Michael Mann receiving the Peace Prize based on a study Keith Briffa did (if that were the case, why did Briffa not receive the study).

Boys and girls, in psychology, we have names for what chuckufarlie is doing. The first is reaction formation. This is when you speak out LOUDLY! against things you secretly do yourself. For example, pedophiles (very bad people, boys and girls) often yell loudly and frequently how abhorrent they find child molestation, but it's only because they're trying to hide the fact that they themselves do it.

Here, in our concrete example, chuckufarlie appears to be condemning wharrgarrbl. But we also know chuckufarlie wharrgarrbl's incessantly. So we know this is reaction formation.

This brings us to part two, projection. Projection is when you pretend other people have your faults. Projection goes hand-in-hand with reaction formation. It is reaction formation with a target. We have seen previous examples where chuckufarlie speaks utter nonsense (such as his ONE DEGREE! post I highlighted). We also know that DesertDemonWY's post was absolute nonsense, and we know my calling it nonsense was legitimate.

Even if we didn't know it was legitimate because our critical thinking skills told us it was legitimate, we could make a valid deduction based on this:

Jon Snow: Are you under the assumption that Michael Mann is the originator of the Yamal reconstruction? Are you just throwing out names you've read on blogs?


Why would a second person identify the exact same problem, independently from me, if I was talking nonsense? Nonsense is random noise, boys and girls. The probability of any two given instances of random noise from two different sources being identical in the perceived signal is so absurdly low as to be considered nil. Logic dictates then that this must be a valid signal.

And if it is a valid signal (again boys and girls, logic dictates it must be), and chuckufarlie incorrectly identified it as noise (and we know he did), that is yet more evidence that chuckufarlie is cognitively impaired. Boys and girls, I ask again, if this man makes as many cognitive errors as we know he does, why should we trust him on the subject of something much, much more complicated?

You may ask yourself, wouldn't his known, evidence-backed cognitive impairments impair his function to think on an even higher level in a repeating pattern of behaviour? The answer is yes, children, they would. If a man cannot run five meters without getting short of breath, there is no way he can run five kilometers without getting short of breath as well -- equally, and (to a high degree of probability) more so.

The correct conclusion is that chuckufarlie should be trusted on nothing which requires critical thought.
 
2012-07-11 02:59:38 PM  

KhanAidan: 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?


AGW...

Was the Earth cooler in the past? Yes
Was the Earth warmer in the past? Yes
Has the carbon level been higher in the past? Yes
Has the carbon level been lower in the past? Yes
Has there ever been a mis-match between higher/lower levels of carbon vs higher/lower temperatures? Yes
Has there ever been a sharp rise in temperature before (pre-human, and 2-3 degrees within 50 years)? Yes

All of the above have been documented in various studies.

So, AGW? Maybe, maybe not. Without a "control Earth" there is no basis for comparison. Yes we are dumping large amounts of pollutants everywhere, but this has been done in the past (volcanoes, asteroids).

And even IF we are responsible currently, the study suggests that we have averted an ice age. Which is a good thing IMHO, I would not like to have a kilometer of ice over me...
 
2012-07-11 03:05:39 PM  

LeftCoast_eh: So, AGW? Maybe, maybe not. Without a "control Earth" there is no basis for comparison.


And that's why we can't do anything, ever, in astronomy, climate science, oceanography, seismology, or a host of other fields. Because we're waiting for that 'control Earth' to get built.

Do you understand that you can calculate the greenhouse effect from first principles? (Heck, 19th-century scientists could.) It wasn't invented ex post facto to explain the observed temperature change.
 
2012-07-11 03:07:20 PM  

LeftCoast_eh: KhanAidan: 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?

AGW...

Was the Earth cooler in the past? Yes
Was the Earth warmer in the past? Yes
Has the carbon level been higher in the past? Yes
Has the carbon level been lower in the past? Yes
Has there ever been a mis-match between higher/lower levels of carbon vs higher/lower temperatures? Yes
Has there ever been a sharp rise in temperature before (pre-human, and 2-3 degrees within 50 years)? Yes

All of the above have been documented in various studies.

So, AGW? Maybe, maybe not. Without a "control Earth" there is no basis for comparison. Yes we are dumping large amounts of pollutants everywhere, but this has been done in the past (volcanoes, asteroids).

And even IF we are responsible currently, the study suggests that we have averted an ice age. Which is a good thing IMHO, I would not like to have a kilometer of ice over me...


Well, it's a good thing then that that is the only other possible outcome.


/are you mental?
 
2012-07-11 03:10:26 PM  

chimp_ninja: LeftCoast_eh: So, AGW? Maybe, maybe not. Without a "control Earth" there is no basis for comparison.

And that's why we can't do anything, ever, in astronomy, climate science, oceanography, seismology, or a host of other fields. Because we're waiting for that 'control Earth' to get built.

Do you understand that you can calculate the greenhouse effect from first principles? (Heck, 19th-century scientists could.) It wasn't invented ex post facto to explain the observed temperature change.


Best laid plans of Mice. Run the life cycle...
 
2012-07-11 03:15:31 PM  

LeftCoast_eh: All of the above have been documented in various studies.

So, AGW? Maybe, maybe not. Without a "control Earth" there is no basis for comparison.


Huh. So wait a second.

1. All these 'documented studies' can be acceptable without a control Earth, and we know them to be true.
2. AGW cannot have 'documented studies' done on it without a control Earth, and we do not know them to be true, despite being conducted with the same rigor as the 'documented studies' in case 1.

Tell me, does the cognitive dissonance at holding two such absolutely stupid, mutually contradictory thoughts cause you a lot of anxiety, or is it more like a low hum that triggers a knee-jerk reflex to respond?
 
2012-07-11 03:19:10 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.


http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=heat+island+effect+climate+change & hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=_dD9T_SAPYj48gT365H5Bg&ved =0CFIQgQMwAA
 
2012-07-11 03:22:31 PM  

LeftCoast_eh: AGW...

Was the Earth cooler in the past? Yes
Was the Earth warmer in the past? Yes
Has the carbon level been higher in the past? Yes
Has the carbon level been lower in the past? Yes
Has there ever been a mis-match between higher/lower levels of carbon vs higher/lower temperatures? Yes
Has there ever been a sharp rise in temperature before (pre-human, and 2-3 degrees within 50 years)? Yes

All of the above have been documented in various studies.

So, AGW? Maybe, maybe not.


Literally almost none of that has anything to do with the reality of anthropogenic warming. You got close* for a heartbeat but lost it by not taking things into proper consideration.

This is all that is necessary for anthropogenic warming to be a reality:

"Are humans increasing radiative forcing, creating a planetary energy imbalance, necessitating warming to a higher equilibrium."

All that we need to answer that question is some 19th-early 20th century physics, a reasonable grasp of the major (not all) radiative forcings, and some common sense.

We know that we're contributing a relatively large amount of sustained net positive radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere. Pretty straightforward physics takes care of the rest.

All that other stuff about whether the climate has changed before in the past is mostly irrelevant to (but turns out to greatly enhance our confidence in) this simple fact.

Without a "control Earth" there is no basis for comparison.

I'm confused. Do you think there's no such thing as astronomy of the early universe because no control exists? Is there no such thing as paleontology, because no control exists? Do you understand how much of modern science functions without a 1:1 "control"?

We use models. We understand that they are models. A "control" is just another kind of model.

Yes we are dumping large amounts of pollutants everywhere, but this has been done in the past (volcanoes, asteroids).

"Pollutant" isn't really the point, and is subjective. What matters is radiative forcing. The magnitude, sign, and lifetime of the forcing from your examples and long-lived GHGs are different.

And even IF we are responsible currently, the study suggests that we have averted an ice age. Which is a good thing IMHO, I would not like to have a kilometer of ice over me...

There are plenty of ways to avert an ice age without causing the kind of climatic change and ocean acidification we're poised to if we don't reign in emissions.

*By close, I mean:

Has there ever been a mis-match between higher/lower levels of carbon vs higher/lower temperatures? Yes

But you failed to consider that other variables were not the same. Rephrase that with "Has there ever been a mis-match between higher/lower levels of carbon vs higher/lower temperatures- when differences between other relevant variables are accounted for?" and the answer changes remarkably. The climate appears to have had a (mostly) consistent sensitivity to changes in radiative forcings going back over hundreds of millions of years.

Also, I'm curious as to your claim:

Has there ever been a sharp rise in temperature before (pre-human, and 2-3 degrees within 50 years)? Yes

To what are you referring? I'm assuming you're talking about a globally-averaged change and in °C. I'm unfamiliar with any such warming of that magnitude over that timescale.
 
2012-07-11 03:31:44 PM  

LeftCoast_eh: KhanAidan: 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?

AGW...

Was the Earth cooler in the past? Yes
Was the Earth warmer in the past? Yes
Has the carbon level been higher in the past? Yes
Has the carbon level been lower in the past? Yes
Has there ever been a mis-match between higher/lower levels of carbon vs higher/lower temperatures? Yes
Has there ever been a sharp rise in temperature before (pre-human, and 2-3 degrees within 50 years)? Yes

All of the above have been documented in various studies.

So, AGW? Maybe, maybe not. Without a "control Earth" there is no basis for comparison. Yes we are dumping large amounts of pollutants everywhere, but this has been done in the past (volcanoes, asteroids).

And even IF we are responsible currently, the study suggests that we have averted an ice age. Which is a good thing IMHO, I would not like to have a kilometer of ice over me...


I guess from my perspective we know two things:

1) CO2 and CH4 trap heat
2) The numbers of such molecules have increased

I just don't see how one could say that AGW isn't occurring. Based on our knowledge of how these molecules work and measurements of the atmosphere's composition, AGW is occurring. Now if one wants to talk about the extent of these effects, I think there can be quite an interesting debate.
 
2012-07-11 03:42:06 PM  

Jon Snow: LeftCoast_eh: AGW...

Was the Earth cooler in the past? Yes
Was the Earth warmer in the past? Yes
Has the carbon level been higher in the past? Yes
Has the carbon level been lower in the past? Yes
Has there ever been a mis-match between higher/lower levels of carbon vs higher/lower temperatures? Yes
Has there ever been a sharp rise in temperature before (pre-human, and 2-3 degrees within 50 years)? Yes

All of the above have been documented in various studies.

So, AGW? Maybe, maybe not.

Literally almost none of that has anything to do with the reality of anthropogenic warming. You got close* for a heartbeat but lost it by not taking things into proper consideration.

This is all that is necessary for anthropogenic warming to be a reality:

"Are humans increasing radiative forcing, creating a planetary energy imbalance, necessitating warming to a higher equilibrium."

All that we need to answer that question is some 19th-early 20th century physics, a reasonable grasp of the major (not all) radiative forcings, and some common sense.

We know that we're contributing a relatively large amount of sustained net positive radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere. Pretty straightforward physics takes care of the rest.

All that other stuff about whether the climate has changed before in the past is mostly irrelevant to (but turns out to greatly enhance our confidence in) this simple fact.

Without a "control Earth" there is no basis for comparison.

I'm confused. Do you think there's no such thing as astronomy of the early universe because no control exists? Is there no such thing as paleontology, because no control exists? Do you understand how much of modern science functions without a 1:1 "control"?

We use models. We understand that they are models. A "control" is just another kind of model.

Yes we are dumping large amounts of pollutants everywhere, but this has been done in the past (volcanoes, asteroids).

"Pollutant" isn't really the point, and is subjective. ...


presented with a simple truth, you decide to muck it up.

Models are only as good as the assumptions that go into them. In any other discipline a model is used to see if a theory has enough merit to make it worthwhile to pursue the theory further. In any other discipline, models are followed by actual experiments. In no other scientific discipline do people stop at modeling.

MODEL - a non-functioning prototype of the real thing.
 
2012-07-11 03:43:25 PM  

KhanAidan: LeftCoast_eh: KhanAidan: 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?

AGW...

Was the Earth cooler in the past? Yes
Was the Earth warmer in the past? Yes
Has the carbon level been higher in the past? Yes
Has the carbon level been lower in the past? Yes
Has there ever been a mis-match between higher/lower levels of carbon vs higher/lower temperatures? Yes
Has there ever been a sharp rise in temperature before (pre-human, and 2-3 degrees within 50 years)? Yes

All of the above have been documented in various studies.

So, AGW? Maybe, maybe not. Without a "control Earth" there is no basis for comparison. Yes we are dumping large amounts of pollutants everywhere, but this has been done in the past (volcanoes, asteroids).

And even IF we are responsible currently, the study suggests that we have averted an ice age. Which is a good thing IMHO, I would not like to have a kilometer of ice over me...

I guess from my perspective we know two things:

1) CO2 and CH4 trap heat
2) The numbers of such molecules have increased

I just don't see how one could say that AGW isn't occurring. Based on our knowledge of how these molecules work and measurements of the atmosphere's composition, AGW is occurring. Now if one wants to talk about the extent of these effects, I think there can be quite an interesting debate.


would you like a list of QUALIFIED scientists who think that you are full of shiat?
 
2012-07-11 03:45:46 PM  

Jon Snow: SevenizGud: TFA

Considering that 2008 was a stronger La Niña, it's only going to strengthen their conclusions when the 2011 data become available. By using a weaker but similar La Niña year, they were being conservative.

SevenizGud: That's some good sciencing there, Lou.

Brain harder.


is that the best that you could come up with? Once again you are shown shoddy science and you ignore it. Anybody who was honest about this would at least admit that it was a bad thing to do.
 
2012-07-11 03:49:43 PM  

chuckufarlie: would you like a list of QUALIFIED scientists who think that you are full of shiat?


we all know what Michael Behe thinks.
 
2012-07-11 03:53:29 PM  

chuckufarlie: would you like a list of QUALIFIED scientists who think that you are full of shiat?


Oh I'd love to see this. I imagine the list of QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS IN THE FIELD OF ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE includes such luminaries as:

1. Michael Crichton, medical doctor, not a physicist or climatologist, who believed in spoon bending (and believed he actually himself magically bent a spoon) as well as seeing auras and having out-of-body experiences.

2. Steve Milloy, who has a BA in Natural Sciences (not a BSc as an actual scientist would have) and a JD, and who insists that DDT bans cause malaria deaths even though DDT has expressly not been banned for malaria control.
 
2012-07-11 03:57:10 PM  

thecpt: chimp_ninja: LeftCoast_eh: So, AGW? Maybe, maybe not. Without a "control Earth" there is no basis for comparison.

And that's why we can't do anything, ever, in astronomy, climate science, oceanography, seismology, or a host of other fields. Because we're waiting for that 'control Earth' to get built.

Do you understand that you can calculate the greenhouse effect from first principles? (Heck, 19th-century scientists could.) It wasn't invented ex post facto to explain the observed temperature change.

Best laid plans of Mice. Run the life cycle...


As I'm often fond of pointing out when speaking to skeptics, we only have the one. If the worst case is significant economic and civil distress due to rapid/high-magnitude changes in climate patterns (be it a hundred or a thousand years), then the precautionary principle should be applied in earnest. To do anything else it to admit a foolish preference for trivial short-term gains in exchange for irreversible long term changes to our planet and its civilizations.

Or, for the low-brow, taking the fark-you-I-got-mine approach to global policy.
 
2012-07-11 03:57:15 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: not a BSc PhD as an actual scientist would have


Fixed.
 
2012-07-11 04:12:51 PM  

chuckufarlie: KhanAidan: LeftCoast_eh: KhanAidan: 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?

AGW...

Was the Earth cooler in the past? Yes
Was the Earth warmer in the past? Yes
Has the carbon level been higher in the past? Yes
Has the carbon level been lower in the past? Yes
Has there ever been a mis-match between higher/lower levels of carbon vs higher/lower temperatures? Yes
Has there ever been a sharp rise in temperature before (pre-human, and 2-3 degrees within 50 years)? Yes

All of the above have been documented in various studies.

So, AGW? Maybe, maybe not. Without a "control Earth" there is no basis for comparison. Yes we are dumping large amounts of pollutants everywhere, but this has been done in the past (volcanoes, asteroids).

And even IF we are responsible currently, the study suggests that we have averted an ice age. Which is a good thing IMHO, I would not like to have a kilometer of ice over me...

I guess from my perspective we know two things:

1) CO2 and CH4 trap heat
2) The numbers of such molecules have increased

I just don't see how one could say that AGW isn't occurring. Based on our knowledge of how these molecules work and measurements of the atmosphere's composition, AGW is occurring. Now if one wants to talk about the extent of these effects, I think there can be quite an interesting debate.

would you like a list of QUALIFIED scientists who think that you are full of shia ...


Actually yes, I would like a list of scientists that say that CO2 and CH4 do not trap heat, and their work that shows that carbon dioxide levels have not increased since the industrial revolution.

No, I do not want a list of scientists that say it isn't happening. I want them to refute either 1) or 2). If they cannot refute either of those two, then AGW is occurring, it is only a matter of its overall effect on climate.
 
2012-07-11 04:15:00 PM  

verbal_jizm: Dr. Mojo PhD: not a BSc PhD as an actual scientist would have

Fixed.


Do degrees in Applied Meteorology count?

t3.gstatic.com

/and now over to Biff at Action News Sports Desk
 
2012-07-11 04:19:32 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: lordaction: The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then a cult. It is nothing more then a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones. Any idiot can figure this out but nobody said liberals had critical thinking skills.

Any time your theory hinges on a broad conspiracy of scientists, world wide, to keep The Truth out of your hands for some nefarious purpose, you really need to give the alternative "I'm a farking idiot" theory more consideration.

/ I bite for trolls


So you are saying that the Emperor IS wearing clothes?
 
2012-07-11 04:32:40 PM  

verbal_jizm: Dr. Mojo PhD: not a BSc PhD as an actual scientist would have

Fixed.


yes hence BA and JD as opposed to BSc and PhD. But thank you.
 
2012-07-11 04:42:39 PM  

KhanAidan: chuckufarlie: KhanAidan: LeftCoast_eh: KhanAidan: 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?

AGW...

Was the Earth cooler in the past? Yes
Was the Earth warmer in the past? Yes
Has the carbon level been higher in the past? Yes
Has the carbon level been lower in the past? Yes
Has there ever been a mis-match between higher/lower levels of carbon vs higher/lower temperatures? Yes
Has there ever been a sharp rise in temperature before (pre-human, and 2-3 degrees within 50 years)? Yes

All of the above have been documented in various studies.

So, AGW? Maybe, maybe not. Without a "control Earth" there is no basis for comparison. Yes we are dumping large amounts of pollutants everywhere, but this has been done in the past (volcanoes, asteroids).

And even IF we are responsible currently, the study suggests that we have averted an ice age. Which is a good thing IMHO, I would not like to have a kilometer of ice over me...

I guess from my perspective we know two things:

1) CO2 and CH4 trap heat
2) The numbers of such molecules have increased

I just don't see how one could say that AGW isn't occurring. Based on our knowledge of how these molecules work and measurements of the atmosphere's composition, AGW is occurring. Now if one wants to talk about the extent of these effects, I think there can be quite an interesting debate.

would you like a list of QUALIFIED scientists who think that you ar ...


I see, you are on idiot. Nobody is arguing about CO2 trapping heat. The argument focuses on IF man is responsible for the very, very small change in temperature,
 
2012-07-11 04:48:56 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: verbal_jizm: Dr. Mojo PhD: not a BSc PhD as an actual scientist would have

Fixed.

yes hence BA and JD as opposed to BSc and PhD. But thank you.


Sorry, just being pedantic. For a lot of biologists it's not till they've been in a PhD program for a little while that they begin to learn the actual science part of science, as opposed to stuffing established theory into their heads. Don't know if it's the same for other disciplines.
 
2012-07-11 04:53:50 PM  

lordaction: Some 'Splainin' To Do: lordaction: The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then a cult. It is nothing more then a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones. Any idiot can figure this out but nobody said liberals had critical thinking skills.

Any time your theory hinges on a broad conspiracy of scientists, world wide, to keep The Truth out of your hands for some nefarious purpose, you really need to give the alternative "I'm a farking idiot" theory more consideration.

/ I bite for trolls

So you are saying that the Emperor IS wearing clothes?


I'm saying that you're a conspiracy theorist since your entire thesis hangs on a vast conspiracy of scientists to hold itself together.

Why don't you go an compare notes with the Truthers and the Creationists? They all have naked emperors, too.

But your conspiracy theory is different, right?
 
2012-07-11 05:00:35 PM  

chuckufarlie: Nobody is arguing about CO2 trapping heat. The argument focuses on IF man is responsible for the very, very small change in temperature,


We're through the looking glass, people.

Bonus: Quantitatively define "small change". Show your work.
 
2012-07-11 05:06:14 PM  
It's amazing the amount of butthurt the mere mention of AL GORE can bring to Jon Snow and Dr. Mojo PhD. Mann, Briffa, Jones, whatever high priest you want, it's all about the bullshiat and busted hockey stick. Your responses really show your religious zealotry for the church of global warming. Amusing, really

Here's some more butthurt for you, morons:
policlimate.com

CO2 continues to go up and up, and yet the year-to-date global temperature anomaly is still below average
 
2012-07-11 05:17:41 PM  

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: Nobody is arguing about CO2 trapping heat. The argument focuses on IF man is responsible for the very, very small change in temperature,

We're through the looking glass, people.

Bonus: Quantitatively define "small change". Show your work.


Gee, Einstein, your own charts have shown time and time again that the average temperature change since 1850 has been less than one degree Celsius. Are you having short term memory issues?

BTW, were YOU not aware what the focus of the argument has been all of these years? I have never believed that you were intelligent by any means but this is a new level of DERP, even for you.
 
2012-07-11 05:26:40 PM  

DesertDemonWY: It's amazing the amount of butthurt the mere mention of AL GORE can bring to Jon Snow and Dr. Mojo PhD. Mann, Briffa, Jones, whatever high priest you want, it's all about the bullshiat and busted hockey stick. Your responses really show your religious zealotry for the church of global warming. Amusing, really

Here's some more butthurt for you, morons:
[policlimate.com image 640x480]

CO2 continues to go up and up, and yet the year-to-date global temperature anomaly is still below average


Now THAT'S how you troll.
 
2012-07-11 05:29:06 PM  

DesertDemonWY: It's amazing the amount of butthurt the mere mention of AL GORE can bring to Jon Snow and Dr. Mojo PhD. Mann, Briffa, Jones, whatever high priest you want, it's all about the bullshiat and busted hockey stick. Your responses really show your religious zealotry for the church of global warming. Amusing, really

Here's some more butthurt for you, morons:
[policlimate.com image 640x480]

CO2 continues to go up and up, and yet the year-to-date global temperature anomaly is still below average


Do you know what the best way to tell everyone that you are a complete moran??

It is posting a graph of 3.5 years of data and pretending it is remotely relevant in demonstrating a climate trend.

Try posting 20 - 30 years (or more) of data from the same source and you will see how incredibly stupid what you just posted is.
 
2012-07-11 05:30:07 PM  
In 2009, in a stunning reversal, Al Gore broke down in tears in front of a throng of reporters at Chicago's World Green Day conference, admitting publicly for the first time that the theory of Global Warming, which the former Vice-President has touted for the better part of three decades, has been nothing more than "hot air". "The fear that I've been perpetuating a hoax has been growing inside me for some time. I finally had no alternative but to admit that my confidence in the global warming theory was melting away faster than the ice caps supposedly were. The mountain of evidence and hard scientific data has overwhelmingly persuaded me to reverse my previous position on Global Warming."

Gore went on to plead his case by presenting another powerpoint slideshow depicting what he described as "irrefutable evidence."

Some highlights:
The Polar bears aren't drowning. (the pictures of them clinging to icebergs for their lives, are actually the bears frolicking, as they have done for centuries)
CO2 is not responsible for climate change, i.e. it does not trap heat within the earth's atmosphere. In fact, a proliferation of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere, if true, would actually be beneficial to plant-life, as this is what they actually breathe".
The Artic and Antarctic ice sheets are not melting.
The world's oceans and seas, that are all interconnected, are not rising. (He admitted sheepishly that his six year old niece pointed out to him that it's impossible for sea levels to rise in one place and not another) He added, "I'm quite sure the millions of people who live on the coast of America would have reported ever encroaching seas by now if this sad and disingenuous tale was true."
There is no consensus amongst any scientists that the earth is heating up. The only consensus is that left-wing extremists agree that fear and hysteria is the best way to gain grant money from gullible governments.
The graph used in the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" known as the "hockey stick" because of it's dramatic up sweep in the last 20 years, was in fact doctored to suit his own scaremongering needs. The previous 200 million years, which show similar up-sweeps; peaks and valleys, did not suit his hysterical viewpoint, so, he made a conscious decision to jettison this sound-science.
Carbon offsets are one of the saddest jokes ever perpetrated on the sheeple of this planet. (Almost as bad as the global dimming theory)
Carbon offsets do not work. (Planting trees to reduce CO2 emissions is likened to people drinking sea water to keep the world's oceans down - as CO2 is only held by a tree for a certain time before being released back into the atmosphere)
Even if the world heated up by 5 degrees Celsius, the coldest parts of both poles are minus 30 degrees Celsius. Higher temperatures would result in more condensation at the equator, which results in more snow over the polar caps at the coldest points and thicker ice sheets; this would, in effect trap more water as ice, not less, resulting in lower coast lines. (This has not happened, proof-positive that the world is not heating up)
The environmental movement, a once noble cause, has been hijacked by the loony left, homeless anti-capitalists like Ed Begley who use fear for political expediency, who stymie growth through the use of hysterical propaganda. They deliver the propaganda to a willing audience of conspiracy theorists, weak-minded individuals, and worse still, starfarkers who are so awestruck by a cadre of environmentalist Hollywood elitists who, whilst being the most outspoken on environmental issues, end up, more often than not, being the biggest hypocrites with their lavish lifestyles, private jets, energy-sucking 10-bedroom mansions, fleets of limousines, prestige cars and entourages of hangers-on that serve no real purpose to either them or humanity.

On the defensive
The rise in temperature: Is the Earth hotter now than it was 40 years ago?
Gore saved his most elaborate explanation for the microscopic rise in urban temperatures that has been reported relentlessly in the mainstream-press.


"When we talk about Earth's temperature, we are really talking not about overall temperature but about our cities' temperatures, as that's where the vast majority of people live. The fact is: cities are in fact hotter now than they were 40 years ago. This is true. The higher temperatures in recent decades is the direct result of 'urban sprawl'." Gore stated. "Take a city like Los Angeles which has urban sprawl in all directions, sprawl that has tripled and quadrupled over the past 50 years. The vast networks of roads, concrete, glass, steel, and other raw materials now covering this once arid landscape create the temperature rise. Simply put: concrete, tar, metal, glass, steel, heat up far more during the day than fields, valleys, rivers, and forests, thus increasing temperature in the most densely populated cities. If temperatures were measured in the middle of nowhere there would be no significant increase.
If we were to return Los Angeles today to the rural landscape, as it was in say 1880, the temperature in the middle of the day would be 5-10 degrees lower than it is now. So, the bigger the urban sprawl, the higher the temperature. We have used these alarming statistics, that this city, or that city has posted the highest temperature, or the hottest month in the past 100 years to scare people and manipulate statistics to support our hysterical viewpoints." Gore went on to say. "And for that, people of planet earth, I am truly sorry."

Polar bears: Doing fine, sunshine.
Gore went on for two hours taking aim at myth after myth and shooting it down. All that was left after the marathon three-hour admission of guilt was a shadow of man who once came within a heartbeat of being President.
Link
 
2012-07-11 05:31:15 PM  
I now await the attacks on the link provided and not one word about what Gore said.
 
2012-07-11 05:38:01 PM  

Farking Canuck: DesertDemonWY: It's amazing the amount of butthurt the mere mention of AL GORE can bring to Jon Snow and Dr. Mojo PhD. Mann, Briffa, Jones, whatever high priest you want, it's all about the bullshiat and busted hockey stick. Your responses really show your religious zealotry for the church of global warming. Amusing, really

Here's some more butthurt for you, morons:
[policlimate.com image 640x480]

CO2 continues to go up and up, and yet the year-to-date global temperature anomaly is still below average

Do you know what the best way to tell everyone that you are a complete moran??

It is posting a graph of 3.5 years of data and pretending it is remotely relevant in demonstrating a climate trend.

Try posting 20 - 30 years (or more) of data from the same source and you will see how incredibly stupid what you just posted is.


It really would make little difference. The charts from the last century show periods of CO2 INCREASE and temperature DECREASE. The 1940s serve as a good example. The first half of that decade was a period of high manufacturing, massive amounts of air land and sea traffic - MASSIVE. It was a period when some 300 or more major cities were burned to the ground, when oil fields and oil processing plants were destroyed by fire. Tankers were set ablaze all over the world - in short massive amounts of CO2 injected into the atmosphere.

ANd yet in the second half of that decade and the decade that followed, average global temperatures DROPPED.
 
2012-07-11 05:42:20 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: DesertDemonWY: So it's ok to dismiss this study because it's just localized cooling, but one tree ring study of a half dozen trees in Yamal is worthy of winning Al Gore and Mann et al. a Nobel Peace Prize and totally proves unprecedented man-made global warming, amirite?

The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

If they gave the Peace Prize for, and I quote, "their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change," then it must flow from that that the Yamal study was the entire font of knowledge in man-made climate change. It was this study you identify as being the cause of the award since you refer to it specifically. You believe this, yes?

You believe the entire Nobel Prize committee awarded Al Gore and Michael Mann a Nobel peace prize based solely on the work of Keith Briffa? Why would they not award one to Keith Briffa? Why would it be "Mann et al" and not "Briffa et al" since it's Briffa's Yamal study you're quoting?

Don't worry, I don't expect serious answers. We all know you deliberately lied. We all know you deliberately lied in claiming it was awarded for a singular study Mann had nothing to do with. We all know you just wanted to touch on the boogeymen of Al Gore and Michael Mann. We all know you're so ignorant you have no idea who Keith Briffa actually is. We all know you simply deliberately lied and wanted to claim that the Nobel Prize was awarded for a singular study rather than the better part of a century's worth of thousands and thousands of studies.


DesertDemonWY: Mann, Briffa, Jones, whatever high priest you want, it's all about the bullshiat and busted hockey stick. Your responses really show your religious zealotry for the church of global warming. Amusing, really


Notice how the conversation went?

1. DesertDemonWY makes the absolutely, patently, demonstrably false claim that Al Gore and Michael Mann were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize over a single study (conducted by Keith Briffa, not Mann).

2. Both Jon Snow and myself point this out to him, that the prize was for the IPCC (not Mann), encompassed far more than the single Yamal study Briffa did, and questioned how ignorant he was on the topic to namedrop Mann, who had nothing whatsoever to do with the study he (falsely) claimed was the only reason Gore & the IPCC were awarded the Peace Prize, and if he was that ignorant on climate change, by what authority does he claim expertise in the subject?

3. His response (after ensuring that he in no way quotes either myself or Snow, in a deliberate attempt to cover up his obvious errors and ignorance) is to ramble about religion and high priests because we said his false claim was false. Think about that for a moment. Somebody says 2+2=5, and you say no, it actually equals for, and this person starts screaming at you about religion. Do you think this person is sane?

4. To top it all off, he begins rambling about the hockey stick graph. Remember the Yamal study he brought up originally? It was conducted in (if memory serves) 2000. Mann, Bradley, Hughes (from which the so-called "hockey stick graph" was originally published) was published in 1999. You will notice two things. First, this is one year before Briffa and Yamal, so unless he had a time machine, it has no bearing on the hockey stick. Second, you will notice that Mann, Bradley, and Hughes are, none of them, named Briffa.

SO, JUST TO SUMMARIZE THE ENTIRE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AS WE KNOW THEM TO BE

Jon Snow and myself are "religious" and have "high priests" because the hockey stick graph has been "debunked", which means that since it's been "debunked", DesertDemonWY can claim Michael Mann won a Nobel Peace Prize for a study Keith Briffa did on Yamal a year after the hockey stick graph was first published. If we point out that this is literally insane (which it demonstrably is), we are simply "butthurt". Debunking a hockey stick graph means that any claim, no matter how wild, how magical, how much involving time travel and pod people switching bodies with each other DesertDemonWY makes is automatically true.

Consider, by analogy, this: I claim that Max Theiler won the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA. Somebody else comes along and points out that no, Theiler won for the vaccine for yellow fever, and it was Watson, Crick, and Wilkins who won the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA over a decade later.

Now imagine I retort by screaming, throwing a fit, trying to avoid admitting how wrong and profoundly ignorant I was by pointing out that the entire field of physiology is wrong because the Piltdown Man hoaxed an entire intermediary species' physiology.

Regardless of whether Piltdown Man was a hoax or not, Piltdown had nothing to do with my original claim, my original claim was still wrong, the person responding to me would still be utterly right, and people would rightly call me a farking lunatic, a freak, a maniac and a loser for making such a profoundly stupid statement and then ranting and raving about some other thing to cover it up.

Never forget that you have seen DesertDemonWY do that exact thing, but with Al Gore and Mann in place of Theiler, Briffa in place of Watson, Crick, and Wilkins, the hockey stick graph in place of Piltdown Man.

Of course, this thread has now been bookmarked for future reference towards DesertDemonWY's deranged behaviour. May as well just stop posting. You won't, but really I'll use this to constantly undermine your credibility. Go talk with the hive mind on whatever message board you shills congregate on a bit, they'll tell you with a self-destruction as bad as the one you just suffered, you'll do more harm to "the cause" then good.
 
2012-07-11 05:44:37 PM  

chuckufarlie: In 2009, in a stunning reversal, Al Gore broke down in tears in front of a throng of reporters at Chicago's World Green Day conference, admitting publicly for the first time that the theory of Global Warming, which the former Vice-President has touted for the better part of three decades, has been nothing more than "hot air". "The fear that I've been perpetuating a hoax has been growing inside me for some time. I finally had no alternative but to admit that my confidence in the global warming theory was melting away faster than the ice caps supposedly were. The mountain of evidence and hard scientific data has overwhelmingly persuaded me to reverse my previous position on Global Warming."

Gore went on to plead his case by presenting another powerpoint slideshow depicting what he described as "irrefutable evidence."

Some highlights:
The Polar bears aren't drowning. (the pictures of them clinging to icebergs for their lives, are actually the bears frolicking, as they have done for centuries)
CO2 is not responsible for climate change, i.e. it does not trap heat within the earth's atmosphere. In fact, a proliferation of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere, if true, would actually be beneficial to plant-life, as this is what they actually breathe".
The Artic and Antarctic ice sheets are not melting.
The world's oceans and seas, that are all interconnected, are not rising. (He admitted sheepishly that his six year old niece pointed out to him that it's impossible for sea levels to rise in one place and not another) He added, "I'm quite sure the millions of people who live on the coast of America would have reported ever encroaching seas by now if this sad and disingenuous tale was true."
There is no consensus amongst any scientists that the earth is heating up. The only consensus is that left-wing extremists agree that fear and hysteria is the best way to gain grant money from gullible governments.
The graph used in the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" known as the "hock ...


wut website is that? a bad onion? It just wasn't even funny though
 
2012-07-11 05:46:46 PM  

chuckufarlie: I see, you are on idiot. Nobody is arguing about CO2 trapping heat. The argument focuses on IF man is responsible for the very, very small change in temperature,


Fantastic! I'm glad you agree that anthropogenic global warming exists. After all, if CO2 traps heat, and CO2 amounts are increasing, then by definition AGW is occurring. I'm happy we could come to an agreement.
 
2012-07-11 05:49:04 PM  
Way to play the semantics game Subtard. Do the world a favor and DIAF.
 
2012-07-11 05:53:42 PM  

chuckufarlie: I now await the attacks on the link provided and not one word about what Gore said.


It would help if he said it and the site you quoted wasn't an obvious satire site:

i.imgur.com

God, and I thought DesertDemonWY had destroyed his credibility.
 
2012-07-11 06:06:49 PM  

DesertDemonWY: It's amazing the amount of butthurt the mere mention of AL GORE can bring to Jon Snow and Dr. Mojo PhD.


i.imgur.com

Yawn.

DesertDemonWY: Mann, Briffa, Jones, whatever high priest you want, it's all about the bullshiat and busted hockey stick.


Of course, paleoclimatic reconstructions of the Northern Hemisphere over the past millennia or two have almost nothing to do with the attribution of warming to human GHG emissions.

Attribution stems from relatively straightforward atmospheric chemistry and physics, emissions inventories, and the dynamic response of the climate system to changes in radiative forcings. Exactly none of which have anything to do with dendro reconstructions.

But keep shouting names and catchphrases you've heard on denialist blogs as though they mean something, buttercup.

DesertDemonWY: Here's some more butthurt for you, morons:
policlimate.com

CO2 continues to go up and up, and yet the year-to-date global temperature anomaly is still below average


I'm curious* as to why:

- You've all of sudden started using the NCEP reanalysis modeling product instead of UAH temp data
- You think that a few months or years says something about long-lived greenhouse gas forcing rather than interannual variability primarily dominated by ENSO
- You think that anthropogenic warming necessitates that temperature increase monotonically
- You think that anthropogenic warming necessitates that CO2 and temperature are required to march in lockstep on interannual timescales

*Confession: I'm not actually curious about any of that. I know it's because you're either an idiot or immensely dishonest.

Remember when you used to cite the UAH temp product exclusively, claiming it was better than the other instrumental observational data sets? What does it say about "the year-to-date global temperature anomaly"?

i.imgur.com

You wouldn't be changing data sets just because you stopped liking what the one you used to cite so much says, would you?

Yes, yes, I know. Me pointing out that you're a disingenuous hack who has no idea what he's talking about means I'm "butthurt". Or something.

Because AL GORE. Or something.
 
2012-07-11 06:10:26 PM  
nicksteel: at 2012-07-11 05:30:07 PM CO2... does not trap heat within the earth's atmosphere.

nicksteel: at 2012-07-11 04:42:39 PM I see, you are on idiot. Nobody is arguing about CO2 trapping heat.
 
2012-07-11 06:12:41 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Here's some more butthurt for you, morons:


Hey! Are you the guy Theaetetus predicted in this thread back at 10:21AM?

Took you long enough!
 
2012-07-11 06:13:34 PM  

KhanAidan: chuckufarlie: I see, you are on idiot. Nobody is arguing about CO2 trapping heat. The argument focuses on IF man is responsible for the very, very small change in temperature,

Fantastic! I'm glad you agree that anthropogenic global warming exists. After all, if CO2 traps heat, and CO2 amounts are increasing, then by definition AGW is occurring. I'm happy we could come to an agreement.


You truly are an idiot. I did not say that it exists, I said IF it exists. If is a very small word, what part of it do you not understand?

Look at your ignorance - You have not shown WHY CO2 is increasing - you just toss out that it is man.

Considering how stupid you are, go play with your WII and leave this to people who can think,
 
2012-07-11 06:15:13 PM  

chuckufarlie: would you like a list of QUALIFIED scientists who think that you are full of shiat?


YES.
 
2012-07-11 06:17:41 PM  

Jon Snow: nicksteel: at 2012-07-11 05:30:07 PM CO2... does not trap heat within the earth's atmosphere.

nicksteel: at 2012-07-11 04:42:39 PM I see, you are on idiot. Nobody is arguing about CO2 trapping heat.


You do realize that if you were truly interested in the science and if you really wanted to push the truth, you would not post things like this. That Boobies that you cited was a quote that I provided. I did not say that, Al Gore did.

Seriously, it is this lack of integrity that illustrates that you are not an honest broker. You have an agenda to push and the truth be damned.

You pretend to be the great learned poster and all you are is another warmer trying to push you agenda. Thanks for once again revealing your true nature.
 
2012-07-11 06:19:40 PM  

blahpers: chuckufarlie: would you like a list of QUALIFIED scientists who think that you are full of shiat?

YES.


read them and weep, dumbass, Link
 
2012-07-11 06:27:03 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: chuckufarlie: I now await the attacks on the link provided and not one word about what Gore said.

It would help if he said it and the site you quoted wasn't an obvious satire site:

[i.imgur.com image 640x425]

God, and I thought DesertDemonWY had destroyed his credibility.


This is why he never links to anything; he either winds up outing one of his alts or screws up and shows everyone that he has such a deficit of critical thinking skills that he gets hoodwinked by satire sites.

Better watch out for those grope-happy Donald Ducks, Chucky!
 
2012-07-11 06:31:07 PM  

nicksteel: You do realize that if you were truly interested in the science and if you really wanted to push the truth, you would not post things like this. That Boobies that you cited was a quote that I provided. I did not say that, Al Gore did.


First, it's adorable that you still don't realize that's satire. Second, you quoted it. Presumably because you believed it was relevant.

Either you just admitted you were unthinkingly spamming copy pasta you don't actually read/agree with, or you think there is some debate that CO2 traps heat.
 
2012-07-11 06:33:32 PM  

blahpers: chuckufarlie: would you like a list of QUALIFIED scientists who think that you are full of shiat?

YES.


Has he ever posted this list he promised?? (I have him on ignore so I can only see the occasional post that others quote)

I would love to see the credentials of any scientists willing to put their name on this list.
 
2012-07-11 06:34:04 PM  

chuckufarlie: I now await the attacks on the link provided and not one word about what Gore said.


I suppose one has to show their hand eventually. Except for Jerry Falwell. I still wonder whether he was serious or whether he out-Kaufmaned Kaufman by taking his act to the grave.
 
2012-07-11 06:40:28 PM  

Farking Canuck: Has he ever posted this list he promised?? (I have him on ignore so I can only see the occasional post that others quote)


No, nicksteel is just repeatedly linking to a comedy site with a fake story about Gore "confessing" he was "wrong" about climate change.
 
2012-07-11 06:42:23 PM  

Jon Snow: nicksteel: You do realize that if you were truly interested in the science and if you really wanted to push the truth, you would not post things like this. That Boobies that you cited was a quote that I provided. I did not say that, Al Gore did.

First, it's adorable that you still don't realize that's satire. Second, you quoted it. Presumably because you believed it was relevant.

Either you just admitted you were unthinkingly spamming copy pasta you don't actually read/agree with, or you think there is some debate that CO2 traps heat.


I posted a long quote about your hero, ALgore. I hardly ever agree with anything that bag o got air says but I thought that your ilk would love to hear from your god.

It was not satire and you know it. It was another example of that fact that you are not interested in the truth.
 
2012-07-11 06:42:36 PM  

Farking Canuck: Has he ever posted this list he promised?? (I have him on ignore so I can only see the occasional post that others quote)

I would love to see the credentials of any scientists willing to put their name on this list.


Nope, of course not. Multiple people told him yes. Keep in mind this is the same guy who, as hypnoticus ceratophrys so deftly put it, got "hoodwinked by a satire site". He's pretty averse to actually linking anything, because he farks up horribly.
 
2012-07-11 06:42:59 PM  

Jon Snow: Farking Canuck: Has he ever posted this list he promised?? (I have him on ignore so I can only see the occasional post that others quote)

No, nicksteel is just repeatedly linking to a comedy site with a fake story about Gore "confessing" he was "wrong" about climate change.


I liked it.
 
2012-07-11 06:45:48 PM  

Farking Canuck: blahpers: chuckufarlie: would you like a list of QUALIFIED scientists who think that you are full of shiat?

YES.

Has he ever posted this list he promised?? (I have him on ignore so I can only see the occasional post that others quote)

I would love to see the credentials of any scientists willing to put their name on this list.


I provided a link for SOME of the scientists. Sorry you are too stupid to have seen it.
 
2012-07-11 06:47:33 PM  

Jon Snow: Farking Canuck: Has he ever posted this list he promised?? (I have him on ignore so I can only see the occasional post that others quote)

No, nicksteel is just repeatedly linking to a comedy site with a fake story about Gore "confessing" he was "wrong" about climate change.


it's adorable that you still don't realize that's satire.
 
2012-07-11 06:47:49 PM  

nciksteel: It was not satire and you know it.



nciksteel: It was not satire and you know it.



nciksteel: It was not satire and you know it.


nciksteel: It was not satire and you know it.

 
2012-07-11 06:48:58 PM  

chuckufarlie: It was not satire and you know it.


i.imgur.com

Other things that are real to chuckufarlie:

From the screenshot:
- The Russian Federation is going to shoot everybody over 40.
- Donald Duck is a rapist.
- James Cameron is going to release a combination Avatar/Titanic movie.
- Charlie Sheen's girlfriend told her children she was a drug-addled loser, then admitted this verbatim to a newspaper.

From around the site:
- A puppet, Kermit the Frog, is in critical condition with the swine flu
- Sean Hannity is going to play a gay man in the Birdcage 2
- Baseball will now allow doping

chuckufarlie, tell us the truth now, do you have autism?
 
2012-07-11 06:49:38 PM  

nicksteel: I posted a long quote about your hero, ALgore. I hardly ever agree with anything that bag o got air says but I thought that your ilk would love to hear from your god.

It was not satire and you know it.


This may be my all time favorite Spitzer Wannabe/FlashLV/nicksteel/chuckufarlie moment.
 
2012-07-11 06:50:40 PM  

Farking Canuck: blahpers: chuckufarlie: would you like a list of QUALIFIED scientists who think that you are full of shiat?

YES.

Has he ever posted this list he promised?? (I have him on ignore so I can only see the occasional post that others quote)

I would love to see the credentials of any scientists willing to put their name on this list.


He posted a link to a site with this as its banner.

i.imgur.com

Note the Putin and Obama quotes and guess what kind of site it is.
 
2012-07-11 06:53:08 PM  

Jon Snow: nicksteel: I posted a long quote about your hero, ALgore. I hardly ever agree with anything that bag o got air says but I thought that your ilk would love to hear from your god.

It was not satire and you know it.

This may be my all time favorite Spitzer Wannabe/FlashLV/nicksteel/chuckufarlie moment.


I don't know what's going to be better, abusing HotIgneous Intruder over buddying up to chuckufarlie and talking about the Dunning-Kruger effect with a guy that just tried to cite a satire website...

--or--

Watching the UFO cultist come in here in his typical impotent rage, white knighting for chuckufarlie until he gets to that post and we use it to abuse him.

It's just great that when chuck self-destructs, he takes so many people with him.
 
2012-07-11 06:54:43 PM  

Jon Snow: nicksteel: I posted a long quote about your hero, ALgore. I hardly ever agree with anything that bag o got air says but I thought that your ilk would love to hear from your god.

It was not satire and you know it.

This may be my all time favorite Spitzer Wannabe/FlashLV/nicksteel/chuckufarlie moment.


Look at you!! You are still trying to hide behind another lie. You are not an honest broker. You have revealed that you are nothing more than the average warmer.

You have destroyed your facade of a person learned on the subject whose only purpose is to push your agenda and the truth be damned
 
2012-07-11 06:56:19 PM  

Farking Canuck: blahpers: chuckufarlie: would you like a list of QUALIFIED scientists who think that you are full of shiat?

YES.

Has he ever posted this list he promised?? (I have him on ignore so I can only see the occasional post that others quote)

I would love to see the credentials of any scientists willing to put their name on this list.


He just relinked the same satire site with the fake AL GORE! article.
 
2012-07-11 06:57:12 PM  

Jon Snow: nciksteel: It was not satire and you know it.

nciksteel: It was not satire and you know it.

nciksteel: It was not satire and you know it.

nciksteel: It was not satire and you know it.


I see your problem. You seem to believe that I am saying that the link to Gore was not satire. If you could actually look at your own post that I was responding to, you would see that I was addressing something else entirely.
 
2012-07-11 06:57:32 PM  

chuckufarlie: Look at you!! You are still trying to hide behind another lie. You are not an honest broker. You have revealed that you are nothing more than the average warmer.

You have destroyed your facade of a person learned on the subject whose only purpose is to push your agenda and the truth be damned


LOL, what an adorable little meltdown. Somebody's suffering autistic rage that their autism couldn't distinguish between satire and a legitimate news site.
 
2012-07-11 06:59:24 PM  

blahpers: Farking Canuck: blahpers: chuckufarlie: would you like a list of QUALIFIED scientists who think that you are full of shiat?

YES.

Has he ever posted this list he promised?? (I have him on ignore so I can only see the occasional post that others quote)

I would love to see the credentials of any scientists willing to put their name on this list.

He just relinked the same satire site with the fake AL GORE! article.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstre a m_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
 
2012-07-11 06:59:41 PM  

chuckufarlie: You seem to believe that I am saying that the link to Gore was not satire.


chuckufarlie: I now await the attacks on the link provided and not one word about what Gore said.


chuckufarlie: I posted a long quote about your hero, ALgore. I hardly ever agree with anything that bag o got air says but I thought that your ilk would love to hear from your god.

It was not satire and you know it.


Aw look, the lil' autistic is trying the "I KNEW IT ALL ALONG GUYS!" trick. It'll work, really nicksteel, really it will.
 
2012-07-11 06:59:43 PM  

chuckufarlie: Jon Snow: nicksteel: I posted a long quote about your hero, ALgore. I hardly ever agree with anything that bag o got air says but I thought that your ilk would love to hear from your god.

It was not satire and you know it.

This may be my all time favorite Spitzer Wannabe/FlashLV/nicksteel/chuckufarlie moment.

Look at you!! You are still trying to hide behind another lie. You are not an honest broker. You have revealed that you are nothing more than the average warmer.

You have destroyed your facade of a person learned on the subject whose only purpose is to push your agenda and the truth be damned


Bahahahahahahahahaa! I'm dying here!

Also, thanks to Jon Snow for pointing out your alts so I can keep the trolls straight. That said, it might be time to get a new alt, chuck.
 
2012-07-11 07:03:02 PM  

blahpers: chuckufarlie: Jon Snow: nicksteel: I posted a long quote about your hero, ALgore. I hardly ever agree with anything that bag o got air says but I thought that your ilk would love to hear from your god.

It was not satire and you know it.

This may be my all time favorite Spitzer Wannabe/FlashLV/nicksteel/chuckufarlie moment.

Look at you!! You are still trying to hide behind another lie. You are not an honest broker. You have revealed that you are nothing more than the average warmer.

You have destroyed your facade of a person learned on the subject whose only purpose is to push your agenda and the truth be damned

Bahahahahahahahahaa! I'm dying here!

Also, thanks to Jon Snow for pointing out your alts so I can keep the trolls straight. That said, it might be time to get a new alt, chuck.


He listed old alts that I no longer use and he is well aware of it. Would you like to know the THREE alts that he still actively uses?
 
2012-07-11 07:08:16 PM  

chuckufarlie: blahpers: Also, thanks to Jon Snow for pointing out your alts so I can keep the trolls straight. That said, it might be time to get a new alt, chuck.

He listed old alts that I no longer use and he is well aware of it. Would you like to know the THREE alts that he still actively uses?


you can find the list at thomaspeep.com

Jon Snow's other alts include:

- PutinIsMy40YearOldShootingHomeboy
- no_kermit_not_the_swine_flu
- Donald Duck Registered Sex Offender
 
2012-07-11 07:22:32 PM  

chuckufarlie: He listed old alts that I no longer use and he is well aware of it.


Also, quick follow up. First, why do you think you need so many alts? I mean, do you really think this is necessary behaviour?

Second, I did a search for FlashLV, it turns out all his posts are deleted. Since you just admitted to being him, you're a banned user. You're admittedly evading a ban, which is against the TOS for this site. I'm sure you won't mind us notifying the admin staff.
 
2012-07-11 07:35:31 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: chuckufarlie, tell us the truth now, do you have autism?


You're insulting autists. I think he's just retarded. That's OK though, I hear there are plenty of 'tards out there living really kickass lives.
 
2012-07-11 07:53:35 PM  

nicksteel: Would you like to know the THREE alts that he still actively uses?

I

sure as hell would! Considering I've made exactly one other username in the entire history of Fark, and it was a parody of a politician that I may have posted under all of once, and have zero actual "alts", I'm dying to hear who "else" I am supposed to be!
 
2012-07-11 08:03:35 PM  

Jon Snow: There are plenty of ways to avert an ice age without causing the kind of climatic change and ocean acidification we're poised to if we don't reign in emissions.


Now that is some mental shiat.
 
2012-07-11 08:04:51 PM  
AVERT THE ICE AGE!

/Gawd waht a freek.
 
2012-07-11 08:10:11 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Jon Snow: LeftCoast_eh: And even IF we are responsible currently, the study suggests that we have averted an ice age. Which is a good thing IMHO, I would not like to have a kilometer of ice over me...

There are plenty of ways to avert an ice age without causing the kind of climatic change and ocean acidification we're poised to if we don't reign in emissions.

Now that is some mental shiat.


You're right, LeftCoast_eh is spewing some mental shiat. Why you're deliberately cropping his name from what Jon is replying to to make it appear as if an AGW proponent, and not an AGW contrarian (much like yourself) is the one spewing it is beyond m... no wait, no it's not. It's because you're a deliberate pathological liar.

Hey, did you like the part of the thread where you struck up a conversation about the Dunning-Kruger effect with a guy who linked to a satire site thinking it was a real news story?
 
2012-07-11 08:11:32 PM  
Every "climate change" thread:

Headline: I'm intentionally full of shiat. Post here.
Trolls: I'm lonely, pay attention to me so I have some surrogate for a real relationship.
Feeders: Grrrrr! I'm so angry at you and I'm totally going to convince you that you're wrong!

Repeat a billion times.
 
2012-07-11 08:14:44 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: AVERT THE ICE AGE!

/Gawd waht a freek.


Haha, look at HotIgneous Intruder try to blame Jon Snow for LeftCoast_eh's comment:

LeftCoast_eh: And even IF we are responsible currently, the study suggests that we have averted an ice age. Which is a good thing IMHO, I would not like to have a kilometer of ice over me...


I guess he's full of impotent rage about this, and trying desperately to deflect and spin:

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.


chuckufarlie: It was not satire and you know it.


The worst part of this is you know HotIgneous Intruder is just going to take out his limp-dick rage by beating his wife, children, or pets.
 
2012-07-11 08:16:39 PM  
Geee, that was fun, I should do that again some time...
 
2012-07-11 08:22:27 PM  

Jon Snow: nicksteel: Would you like to know the THREE alts that he still actively uses?

I sure as hell would! Considering I've made exactly one other username in the entire history of Fark, and it was a parody of a politician that I may have posted under all of once, and have zero actual "alts", I'm dying to hear who "else" I am supposed to be!


stay there on the moral high ground, you poser. Keep pretending to me interested in getting out the truth while all the time you are lying like a rug.

If you do not know your own ALTS, maybe you really are a semi-functioning moron.
 
2012-07-11 08:23:10 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Every "climate change" thread:

Headline: I'm intentionally full of shiat. Post here.
Trolls: I'm lonely, pay attention to me so I have some surrogate for a real relationship.
Feeders: Grrrrr! I'm so angry at you and I'm totally going to convince you that you're wrong!

Repeat a billion times.


which one are you on that list?
 
2012-07-11 08:26:01 PM  

chuckufarlie: If you do not know your own ALTS, maybe you really are a semi-functioning moron.

You

promised to share them with us.

Of course, you also promised Al Gore confessing to having abandoned his belief in global warming, and linked to a satire site that you insisted wasn't satire even after looking at the front page that had an article on the characters from Avatar traveling through time to interact with the characters from Titanic.

But yeah, I mean really. You promised to share, chuckufarlie. You gotta love the special autistic rage it takes to go "YOU WANNA SEE HIS ALTS? HUH? HUH?" "Yeah, I sure do!" "THAT JUST PROVSE HOW STUPID YOU ARE THAT YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW YOUR OWN ALTS!"

Also lol you're a self-admitted banned user evading a ban.
 
2012-07-11 09:09:13 PM  
Holy hell, I just found this thread...

Did Chuck just tacitly admit that he is flashLV and Spitzer Wannabe? Pretty sure one of them is on a permanent vacation. I remember lurking in flash's last meltdown thread.


As to the headline: after being opposed for quite awhile, I am now leaning towards an "out the submitter" button. This headline is pure troll.

So, 4 hours till green text? Or will it be 6?
 
2012-07-11 09:14:25 PM  
Oh, hey Mojo, can you remember which thread several of you posted pictures of your car license plates? I can't find the damn thing, was going to post a link to it when I saw him break out the alt accusations again. Meh, shower then bed for me, I'll check this tomorrow.
 
2012-07-11 09:42:08 PM  

Zafler: Oh, hey Mojo, can you remember which thread several of you posted pictures of your car license plates? I can't find the damn thing, was going to post a link to it when I saw him break out the alt accusations again. Meh, shower then bed for me, I'll check this tomorrow.


This one


/I'm not Mojo's alt, I swear.
 
2012-07-11 09:46:59 PM  

Zafler: Holy hell, I just found this thread...

Did Chuck just tacitly admit that he is flashLV and Spitzer Wannabe? Pretty sure one of them is on a permanent vacation. I remember lurking in flash's last meltdown thread.


As to the headline: after being opposed for quite awhile, I am now leaning towards an "out the submitter" button. This headline is pure troll.

So, 4 hours till green text? Or will it be 6?



Oh look who "showed" up!! No, dumbass, I am not FlashLV. But I can see why you might think so.
 
2012-07-11 10:00:15 PM  

chuckufarlie: No, dumbass, I am not FlashLV. But I can see why you might think so.


chuckufarlie: Jon Snow: This may be my all time favorite Spitzer Wannabe/FlashLV/nicksteel/chuckufarlie moment.

[...]

He listed old alts that I no longer use and he is well aware of it.


Yes, your direct admission that you're FlashLV probably did that. Is this another one of chuckufarlie's monumental fark-ups?

FlashLV/Spitzer Wannabe/nicksteel/chuckufarlie: HEY CHECK OUT THIS GOOGLE GROUPS POST!

Farkers: Uh, it looks like your posts...

FlashLV/Spitzer Wannabe/nicksteel/chuckufarlie: YEAH THAT'S MINE!

Farkers: It's just, uh, you make like thousands of posts per day about AGW, sometimes to groups that have nothing to do with AGW, like mathematics groups.

FlashLV/Spitzer Wannabe/nicksteel/chuckufarlie: OH NO THAT'S TOTES NOT MINE. WHEN I POSTED A LINK TO GOOGLE GROUPS AND YOU CLICKED ON IT, IT MAGICALLY LOGGED ALL OF YOU IN TO MY ACCOUNT SO I THOUGHT YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT MY NAME IN THE UPPER GOOGLE TOOLBAR. FOR REAL.

* * * * *

FlashLV/Spitzer Wannabe/nicksteel/chuckufarlie: HEY YOUR GOD ALGORE TOTALLY REPUDIATED GLOBAL WARMING!

Farkers: Uh, that's a satire site.

FlashLV/Spitzer Wannabe/nicksteel/chuckufarlie: NO IT'S NOT SATIRE, IT'S TOTALLY LEGIT. YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO ATTACK THE MESSENGER TO AVOID DEALING WITH
WHAT YOUR GOD ALGORE SAID!

Farkers: Uh, no, really, it's obviously satire, it has stories about how Putin is going to have every Russian over 40 shot and how a puppet has the swine flu.

FlashLV/Spitzer Wannabe/nicksteel/chuckufarlie: I KNEW IT WAS SATIRE ALL ALONG!

* * * * *

FlashLV/Spitzer Wannabe/nicksteel/chuckufarlie: HERP A DERP!

Farkers: Oh great, FlashLV/Spitzer Wannabe/nicksteel/chuckufarlie is at it again.

FlashLV/Spitzer Wannabe/nicksteel/chuckufarlie: HAHA YEAH BUT WHAT YOU'RE NOT SAYING IS THAT WHILE ALL THOSE ARE MY ALTS, THEY'RE OLD ALTS AND I FOR REALS DON'T POST UNDER THEM ANYMORE SO IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF I KEEP MAKING NEW ACCOUNTS TO TRY AND ASTROTURF.

Farkers: Uh, so, you're a permanently banned member of this site?

FlashLV/Spitzer Wannabe/nicksteel/chuckufarlie: LOL DUMBASS NO I NEVER SAID THAT!

You're a slick one, FlashLV. I'll give you that. Pulled the wool over everybody's eyes, really.
 
2012-07-11 10:06:29 PM  

nicksteel: No, dumbass, I am not FlashLV. But I can see why you might think so.


Because you said you were?

Jon Snow: This may be my all time favorite Spitzer Wannabe/FlashLV/nicksteel/chuckufarlie moment.

blahpers: Bahahahahahahahahaa! I'm dying here!

Also, thanks to Jon Snow for pointing out your alts so I can keep the trolls straight. That said, it might be time to get a new alt, chuck.


nicksteel: He listed old alts that I no longer use and he is well aware of it.

 
2012-07-11 10:09:44 PM  

Jon Snow: nicksteel: No, dumbass, I am not FlashLV. But I can see why you might think so.

Because you said you were?

Jon Snow: This may be my all time favorite Spitzer Wannabe/FlashLV/nicksteel/chuckufarlie moment.

blahpers: Bahahahahahahahahaa! I'm dying here!

Also, thanks to Jon Snow for pointing out your alts so I can keep the trolls straight. That said, it might be time to get a new alt, chuck.

nicksteel: He listed old alts that I no longer use and he is well aware of it.


gee, brainiac, I never said ALL of them were mine, now did I? How can somebody that makes a mistake like that even pretend to be even remotely intelligent?
 
2012-07-11 10:15:32 PM  

nicksteel: I never said ALL of them were mine, now did I?


You went out of your way to say that I listed your old alts. At no point did you say any of them were not you.

This is one of those instances when people aren't going to be able to tell if you're being dishonest after getting caught (as we've just witnessed with the "zomg I knew it was satire" hilarity), or are just so ignorant you didn't realize what you were agreeing to in the first place (like that google groups incident).
 
2012-07-11 10:18:37 PM  

chuckufarlie: gee, brainiac, I never said ALL of them were mine, now did I?


Uh yeah, you did.

When your doctor warns your wife that you have syphilis, AIDS, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, and you go "DON'T WORRY BLOW-UP BETTY, THOSE ARE ALL DISEASES I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE!", and then you work the sex doll's mouth like a puppet and make it go "BUT FLASH ELL VEE, HIV HAS NO CURE!" you can't scream at your inflatable love goddess that it's not like you said they were ALL diseases you had.

Sure you did.

I mean, I know I'm wrong for antagonizing an autistic here, but um, since you took so much umbrage and hastily pointed out that these were all alts you didn't use any more, why didn't you also point out, you know, while you were at it, that some of them weren't even your alts to begin with?

I don't know what I like best, the fact that he responds with alts, plural, meaning more than one of Spitzer Wannabe, nicksteel, and FlashLV is his, or that after admitting they were all his, he'd try to walk back his comments and claim that the only one that wasn't his was the one that was coincidentally permabanned from the site. That, or the fact that it's transparently obvious that he's trying to amend his claim after we once again pointed it out to him what a bumbling, Wile E. Coyote-esque figure he is, trying to "trick" us into believing they aren't "all" his even though the whole thing with the saying they are, loudly protesting that it was unfair to point out, and then just "forgetting" to loudly protest that one of the ones being assigned to him wasn't even him.

Just more normal thoughts for a normal guy!
 
2012-07-11 10:22:54 PM  

Jon Snow: nicksteel: I never said ALL of them were mine, now did I?

You went out of your way to say that I listed your old alts. At no point did you say any of them were not you.

This is one of those instances when people aren't going to be able to tell if you're being dishonest after getting caught (as we've just witnessed with the "zomg I knew it was satire" hilarity), or are just so ignorant you didn't realize what you were agreeing to in the first place (like that google groups incident).


at no point did I say that they were all mine. Just for once in your life, stop being such a moron.
 
2012-07-11 10:25:57 PM  

Jon Snow: nicksteel: I never said ALL of them were mine, now did I?

You went out of your way to say that I listed your old alts. At no point did you say any of them were not you.

This is one of those instances when people aren't going to be able to tell if you're being dishonest after getting caught (as we've just witnessed with the "zomg I knew it was satire" hilarity), or are just so ignorant you didn't realize what you were agreeing to in the first place (like that google groups incident).


Axiom: nicksteel is always dishonest or wrong.
 
2012-07-11 10:27:26 PM  

Jon Snow: This is one of those instances when people aren't going to be able to tell if you're being dishonest after getting caught (as we've just witnessed with the "zomg I knew it was satire" hilarity), or are just so ignorant you didn't realize what you were agreeing to in the first place (like that google groups incident).


The Google Groups thing falls in to the first category, as does this instance. Pleading stupidity is preferable to pleading guilt, after all, which is why it's a favourite tactic of the guilty, (while the stupid will often plead responsibility (Pee-Wee Herman's I mean to do that! line comes to mind)).

In other words, the guilty want to look stupid, and the stupid want to look guilty.

And yes, it's deliberate. FlashLV was the first alt you listed. He say that, he got cried unfair that you posted "old alts", and never once thought to cry "unfair" that you posted alts that weren't even him? Never once thought to say until after it was pointed out one of those alts was going beyond making a new account in to ban evasion territory, itself a bannable offence?

Then (suddenly) the story morphs from "WAH! IT'S UNFAIR! THOSE ARE OLD ALTS [implication: they're all his] AND I DON'T USE THEM ANYMORE!" to "WAH! IT'S UNFAIR! TWO OF THOSE ARE OLD ALTS AND ONE ISN'T EVEN MINE BUT I JUST NEVER SAID SO BEFORE UNTIL I WAS REMINDED THAT ONE OF THEM (THE ONE OUT OF THE ENTIRE LIST THAT HAPPENS TO NOT BE MINE) IS PERMANENTLY BANNED WITH ALL THE POSTS DELETED BUT I JUST NEVER NOTICED THAT FACT EVEN THOUGH ACCUSING ME OF EVADING A BAN IS WORSE THAN ACCUSING ME OF JUST HAVING ANOTHER ACCOUNT!"? Just like that?

Give me a farking break.

I don't know if you've ever dealt with crazy people; I have. This is par for the course with them. Their stories change regularly: The surest sign a nutbag is guilty as sin is if he finds ten different ways to tell you he's innocent.
 
2012-07-11 10:28:33 PM  
Update: Do not edit posts when tired, sentence structure will be mangled to death. You get the point.
 
2012-07-11 10:29:35 PM  

Jon Snow: nicksteel: I never said ALL of them were mine, now did I?

You went out of your way to say that I listed your old alts. At no point did you say any of them were not you.

This is one of those instances when people aren't going to be able to tell if you're being dishonest after getting caught (as we've just witnessed with the "zomg I knew it was satire" hilarity), or are just so ignorant you didn't realize what you were agreeing to in the first place (like that google groups incident).


when a person reads a simple statement and reads things into it that are not there, then I can understand why that person would believe in AGW.

stupid people will believe in all sorts of lies. There are several programs on cable with people hunting Big Foot, UFOs, ghosts and all sorts of BS. I bet you watch all of them.
 
2012-07-11 10:34:18 PM  

chuckufarlie: when a person reads a simple statement and reads things into it that are not there, then I can understand why that person would believe in AGW.

stupid people will believe in all sorts of lies. There are several programs on cable with people hunting Big Foot, UFOs, ghosts and all sorts of BS. I bet you watch all of them.


And now the deflection comes. You sound like a child, you know that?

I asked you two simple questions before. You have yet to answer them.

1. Why did you agree that those were your alts? He listed four names, you said they were yours. You never pointed out a single one wasn't. You used the affirmative on all four of them.

Even assuming the first question is irrelevant (it's not, you're playing weird Aspie contractualist language games with the English language that only in the most demented of company could even be called semantics -- you used the affirmative on ALL FOUR LISTED COUNTS), then this second question is still relevant:

2. Why did you get upset that Jon Snow was being unfair in accusing you of having old alts, but never got upset that Jon Snow was accusing you of being a ban-evading person who you never were (a much, much worse offence)?

Oh, well, you did actually take offence at that -- after being reminded that your FlashLV alt had been permabanned from the site.
 
2012-07-11 10:39:25 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: chuckufarlie: when a person reads a simple statement and reads things into it that are not there, then I can understand why that person would believe in AGW.

stupid people will believe in all sorts of lies. There are several programs on cable with people hunting Big Foot, UFOs, ghosts and all sorts of BS. I bet you watch all of them.

And now the deflection comes. You sound like a child, you know that?

I asked you two simple questions before. You have yet to answer them.

1. Why did you agree that those were your alts? He listed four names, you said they were yours. You never pointed out a single one wasn't. You used the affirmative on all four of them.

Even assuming the first question is irrelevant (it's not, you're playing weird Aspie contractualist language games with the English language that only in the most demented of company could even be called semantics -- you used the affirmative on ALL FOUR LISTED COUNTS), then this second question is still relevant:

2. Why did you get upset that Jon Snow was being unfair in accusing you of having old alts, but never got upset that Jon Snow was accusing you of being a ban-evading person who you never were (a much, much worse offence)?

Oh, well, you did actually take offence at that -- after being reminded that your FlashLV alt had been permabanned from the site.


I did not answer you because I have you on ignore because you are a waste of my time. Hell, you are a waste of skin.

Believe whatever you want, I do not care what you believe. I, however, believe that you are a moron.
 
2012-07-11 11:18:14 PM  

chuckufarlie: KhanAidan: chuckufarlie: I see, you are on idiot. Nobody is arguing about CO2 trapping heat. The argument focuses on IF man is responsible for the very, very small change in temperature,

Fantastic! I'm glad you agree that anthropogenic global warming exists. After all, if CO2 traps heat, and CO2 amounts are increasing, then by definition AGW is occurring. I'm happy we could come to an agreement.

You truly are an idiot. I did not say that it exists, I said IF it exists. If is a very small word, what part of it do you not understand?

Look at your ignorance - You have not shown WHY CO2 is increasing - you just toss out that it is man.

Considering how stupid you are, go play with your WII and leave this to people who can think,

===========================================

Okay chucklehead, how about you tell us why CO2 levels are increasing then? Clearly you dispute the idea that human intervention since the Industrial Revolution is to blame, so what else then? Is it mysteriously rising up from the ocean? Or maybe it's because of massive fires in the Amazon... oh wait, that is because of human activity, so scratch that one. Go on chuck, tell us your ground-breaking theory that has such a higher level of verisimilitude than the idea that human activity is the cause. We're waiting...

/i find it hilarious when obviously ignorant people try to project their deficiencies onto others via insults
 
2012-07-11 11:24:52 PM  

Jon Snow: If you have any questions, let me know. I'm happy to discuss things via email if you're more comfortable that way.


I admit that I'm a skeptic but I'm afraid that makes me a GOP voting, gun toting, toothless, redneck, who is completely ignorant of science. My comment is this...

It is amazing how much your comments have changed, amazing.

To answer the question of the proverbial cartoon? It damages the reputation of science and pushes more people to agree with religious systems if science is wrong and pushing this hard.

Blind belief in "science" (which is KNOWN to change) is as silly as blind belief in religion. Yes, you know it is. Yes, I'm sure you've felt the pressure.

However, I'm glad you do it, I'm lucky in that I'm not a zealot and can wait for finished results as opposed to "believing" for the sake of belief. That doesn't negate my appreciation for your views and willingness to keep on keeping on.
 
2012-07-11 11:45:53 PM  

chuckufarlie: Dr. Mojo PhD: 1. Why did you agree that those were your alts? He listed four names, you said they were yours. You never pointed out a single one wasn't. You used the affirmative on all four of them.

Even assuming the first question is irrelevant (it's not, you're playing weird Aspie contractualist language games with the English language that only in the most demented of company could even be called semantics -- you used the affirmative on ALL FOUR LISTED COUNTS), then this second question is still relevant:

2. Why did you get upset that Jon Snow was being unfair in accusing you of having old alts, but never got upset that Jon Snow was accusing you of being a ban-evading person who you never were (a much, much worse offence)?

I did not answer you because I have you on ignore because you are a waste of my time. Hell, you are a waste of skin.


And yet were able to read my question anyway, despite me being on ignore and nobody quoting it to let you know the tone or timbre of my pressing you had changed from any of the other posts you must have equally ignored that failed to pique your curiosity. No, you don't have me on ignore. Rather, you ignore me because I pose difficulty questions that speak directly to your psyche. Not your argument. You. I speak directly to the discomfort you feel at fark-up after fark-up.

This, of course, you read and tried to dismiss. Notice how even after reading it you didn't even address the questions, just addressed me to address why they weren't worth answering? So telling that you want people to ignore what the questions you failed to answer were.

It's because they speak directly to who you are, and what your identity is. You are indeed FlashLV, QED. You'll be reported as such at my leisure, of course, the decapitating stroke coming when it pleases me to harm you the most.
 
2012-07-11 11:49:42 PM  

UnspokenVoice: Blind belief in "science" (which is KNOWN to change) is as silly as blind belief in religion. Yes, you know it is. Yes, I'm sure you've felt the pressure.


Nobody blindly believes in science, precisely because it is known to change:

i.imgur.com

The conclusion supports the hypothesis. If it no longer does, a new hypothesis will be created.
 
2012-07-11 11:56:17 PM  

UnspokenVoice: Blind belief in "science" (which is KNOWN to change) is as silly as blind belief in religion. Yes, you know it is. Yes, I'm sure you've felt the pressure.


There is no blind belief in science (except perhaps as a philosophical approach to asking questions and testing potential answers). This is pretty darn accurate:

s3.amazonaws.com
 
2012-07-12 12:05:17 AM  

UnspokenVoice: I admit that I'm a skeptic but I'm afraid that makes me a GOP voting, gun toting, toothless, redneck, who is completely ignorant of science.


That's a little unecessary. While it's true that many of today's self-identified conservatives have embraced climate denialism as part of their identity politics, it does not follow that all conservatives are denialists (they're not), nor that all denialists are conservatives (they're not).

As I said to the earlier person, skepticism in the face of something you've not been presented evidence for is perfectly acceptable- moreover encouraged.

My comment is this...

It is amazing how much your comments have changed, amazing.


Not sure what this is in reference to. If it's because my tone is polite to someone who expresses skepticism in a reasonable manner, while I treat people who troll climate threads for months if not years regurgitating the same BS talking points and never learning a little differently- then I hope the reason is self-evident.

To answer the question of the proverbial cartoon?

What cartoon?

It damages the reputation of science and pushes more people to agree with religious systems if science is wrong and pushing this hard.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Probably because I don't know which cartoon you're referring to.

Blind belief in "science" (which is KNOWN to change) is as silly as blind belief in religion. Yes, you know it is. Yes, I'm sure you've felt the pressure.

I don't get this either. I suppose that if there are people out there that "worship" science out of "blind belief", that would be just as silly as "blind belief" in religion. However, I sincerely doubt that there are many people out there (if we're talking about Americans, say) who have no experience with science's track record of success. Which pretty much automatically disqualifies them from engaging in "blind belief". Moreover, science's self-correcting nature ensures that as long as one is willing to follow the evidence (rather than an ideological belief and/or fear of assumed consequences),remains a powerful asset, not a negative.

I don't know what you're referring to by "felt the pressure".

However, I'm glad you do it, I'm lucky in that I'm not a zealot and can wait for finished results as opposed to "believing" for the sake of belief.

If you're under the belief that the attribution of present warming to human causes is not a "finished result" (as much as anything in science can be "finished"), then I have some disappointing news. The theoretical framework was laid down more than a century ago. The understanding and observational evidence began to accumulate in earnest decades ago. We know with high confidence that humans are warming the planet, largely but not exclusively through our emission of greenhouse gases.

That doesn't negate my appreciation for your views and willingness to keep on keeping on.

If I am supposed to represent the "zealot" versus your "wait and see", I'm afraid I'm not the person you're looking for. If this is simply in reference to my willingness to engage with people on the subject, then thanks.

My offer stands to you or anyone else who is actually skeptical about the attribution of present warming to human influence/unfamiliarity with the evidence. I'm happy to have a respectful, evidence-based discussion here or over email. Understanding logical fallacies and energy balance are a great base to have but not a prerequisite.

Cheers!
 
2012-07-12 01:00:58 AM  

UnspokenVoice:

- Blind belief in "science" (which is KNOWN to change) is as silly as blind belief in religion.

- I'm not a zealot and can wait for finished results as opposed to "believing" for the sake of belief.


These two statements demonstrate that you have very little understanding of science.

Our scientific understanding of any topic is always changing. This is how science works. Occasionally our understanding undergoes radical upheavals (like what would have happened if the Higgs Bosun was shown to not be where they expected it to be) but, more often than not, a well understood topic just gets refined and the data/models get more accurate (or, in the case of the Higgs, not disproven).

Using science, what a person chooses to believe is not based on faith ... it is based on weight of evidence (the opposite of faith). For example, the weight of evidence for AGW is massive. It just takes a little effort to look past all the political maneuvering to the actual scientific papers and you can see for yourself.

Science is never finished. The answers that science offers are never 100% correct. This does not stop science from working ... computers are build from "unfinished science", men walked on the moon using "unfinished" science, and we currently have a pretty damn good understanding of AGW using "unfinished" science.

If you plan on waiting for finished results on any topic under scientific study you will go to your grave unsatisfied.
 
2012-07-12 02:42:11 AM  
farm8.staticflickr.com
 
2012-07-12 09:22:46 AM  

acefox1: [farm8.staticflickr.com image 480x640]


You don't mind if I steal that, do you?
 
2012-07-12 10:47:30 AM  

acefox1: [farm8.staticflickr.com image 480x640]


too bad that you are too stupid to realize that the hoax is being pushed by politicians at the UN and not by scientists. Other than that, you have it almost right.

You are also too stupid to realize that the oil companies are smart enough to use your baseless fear to make more money. They are investing in alternate fuels and Detroit will sell you a battery operated car. They win, you end up spending lots of money for no benefit.

Spines, we all need them.
 
2012-07-12 10:55:47 AM  

lisarenee3505: chuckufarlie: KhanAidan: chuckufarlie: I see, you are on idiot. Nobody is arguing about CO2 trapping heat. The argument focuses on IF man is responsible for the very, very small change in temperature,

Fantastic! I'm glad you agree that anthropogenic global warming exists. After all, if CO2 traps heat, and CO2 amounts are increasing, then by definition AGW is occurring. I'm happy we could come to an agreement.

You truly are an idiot. I did not say that it exists, I said IF it exists. If is a very small word, what part of it do you not understand?

Look at your ignorance - You have not shown WHY CO2 is increasing - you just toss out that it is man.

Considering how stupid you are, go play with your WII and leave this to people who can think,
===========================================

Okay chucklehead, how about you tell us why CO2 levels are increasing then? Clearly you dispute the idea that human intervention since the Industrial Revolution is to blame, so what else then? Is it mysteriously rising up from the ocean? Or maybe it's because of massive fires in the Amazon... oh wait, that is because of human activity, so scratch that one. Go on chuck, tell us your ground-breaking theory that has such a higher level of verisimilitude than the idea that human activity is the cause. We're waiting...


/i find it hilarious when obviously ignorant people try to project their deficiencies onto others via insults


Ice core samples have shown that an increase in CO2 has always followed an increase in temperature. Since I have a feeling you are too thick to understand let me lay it out for you.

The temperature increases (for what ever reasoin)
this increases CO2
which increases the temperature
this increases CO2
which increases the temperature
this increases CO2
which increases the temperature
this increases CO2

and then some event puts a stop to it.


You are so uninformed that it is hilarious. You obviously have no knowledge of this subject and yet you are willing to push the idea that this is real. Are you always so gullible? How many Nigerian emails have you responded to in an effort to help some poor soul get their money out Nigeria?

I have some swamp land for sale, are you interested? It is near a school.

How about I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge - I really have no need for it and I will sell at a good price. Just send me a box of cash and I will send you the title.
 
2012-07-12 12:48:55 PM  
www.woodfortrees.org

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.


I really really would prefer to avoid an ice age...

Science is something to be chipped away at, hassled, investigated, examined, pored over, tested and thought about and finally, when there is nothing left for the ravening hordes to pull off it, declared to be truth. The only science that is good is science that can withstand any attempt to disprove it. Science that needs protecting from this is not good science and will not be shown to be truth in the end. Take cold fusion as an example.

Oh, some of you need reminding that assertion is not proof.

These threads are becoming more like a pantomime as time goes on. (oh, yes it is. Oh no it isn`t)
 
2012-07-12 12:50:03 PM  
oops, forgot I had the image linked.
 
2012-07-12 01:00:54 PM  

dready zim: [www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]
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.

I really really would prefer to avoid an ice age...

Science is something to be chipped away at, hassled, investigated, examined, pored over, tested and thought about and finally, when there is nothing left for the ravening hordes to pull off it, declared to be truth. The only science that is good is science that can withstand any attempt to disprove it. Science that needs protecting from this is not good science and will not be shown to be truth in the end. Take cold fusion as an example.

Oh, some of you need reminding that assertion is not proof.

These threads are becoming more like a pantomime as time goes on. (oh, yes it is. Oh no it isn`t)


people need to look at the left hand side of charts like this.
 
2012-07-12 01:30:05 PM  

the guy who linked to a satire website thinking it was real news: You are so uninformed that it is hilarious.

 
2012-07-12 01:32:42 PM  

dready zim: Science is something to be chipped away at, hassled, investigated, examined, pored over, tested and thought about and finally, when there is nothing left for the ravening hordes to pull off it, declared to be truth. The only science that is good is science that can withstand any attempt to disprove it.


I disagree with your characterization of science pretty strongly.

Science should not be "declared to be truth", no matter how much it is vetted.

Science is all about offering best approximate models of reality. We have very high confidence in some things, high enough to consider them "facts", but the science that informs that confidence is always a model or approximation of reality.

I also disagree that "the only science that is good is science that can withstand any attempt to disprove it".

You can "disprove" plenty of scientific models that are still perfectly useful for some tasks, provided that you understand their limitations. There's nothing wrong with using Newtonian physics to calculate trajectories of objects the size of bullets and baseballs, even though Newtonian physics doesn't "withstand every attempt to disprove it". I think Newtonian physics is plenty "good" even though I know it doesn't work out so well at quantum or relativistic levels.
 
2012-07-12 02:00:31 PM  

Jon Snow: I disagree with your characterization of science pretty strongly.


Well, that`s like, just your opinion man. Newtonian physics is not the best science we have for explaining reality. It is a good tool, like you say, for certain situations but it is not good science as it is not true for all situations it was meant to cover. Man went to the moon with this tool but as science it has been shown to be innacurate. Fast moving things or very tiny things show this as you stated.

It`s a good tool, not good science.
 
2012-07-12 03:27:11 PM  

dready zim: It`s a good tool, not good science.


Sorry. Can't agree with you there.

The idea that there is "good" or "bad" science based on subsequent revelations that were unknown to the person conducting said science is, IMO, very, very flawed. It's confusing ultimate outcomes with the models and the process of science. Without "bad" science like Newtonian physics, we would be much worse off.

That's why I think using labels like "most accurate" or "realistic" to describe various scientific explanations is preferable to "good/bad" or "right/wrong".

But as you said, just like MO, man.
 
2012-07-12 04:13:02 PM  

dready zim: Jon Snow: I disagree with your characterization of science pretty strongly.

Well, that`s like, just your opinion man. Newtonian physics is not the best science we have for explaining reality. It is a good tool, like you say, for certain situations but it is not good science as it is not true for all situations it was meant to cover. Man went to the moon with this tool but as science it has been shown to be innacurate. Fast moving things or very tiny things show this as you stated.

It`s a good tool, not good science.


Exactly what was your groundbreaking contribution to the advancement of human civilization that puts you in a position to judge Newton's work as bad science? Last thread I saw you post in you were struggling with introductory ecology/earth science.
 
Displayed 337 of 337 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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