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.

(BBC)   Before global warming, my fish was THIS BIG   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 178
    More: Unlikely, marine ecosystem, body temperatures, metabolic rates, haddock, Bottom of the Ocean, University of Aberdeen, greenhouse gas emissions, global warming  
•       •       •

3535 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Sep 2012 at 10:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-30 08:58:46 PM
Oh I wish, I wish I hadn't killed that fish.
 
2012-09-30 10:48:51 PM
So the fish are going to scale themselves back?
 
2012-09-30 11:02:42 PM

Red Shirt Blues: So the fish are going to scale themselves back?


It's either that, or they're finished.
 
2012-09-30 11:06:06 PM
At least some kind kind of sense with these claims. Warm temperatures mean bigger not smaller animals.
 
2012-09-30 11:22:00 PM

bestie1: At least some kind kind of sense with these claims. Warm temperatures mean bigger not smaller animals.


Read the article. Warmer water holds less oxygen, while at the same time boosting the metabolic rates of cold-blooded animals living in it.

Less oxygen + faster metabolism = smaller animals, not larger.
 
2012-09-30 11:36:22 PM
Despite the results of the computer simulations in TFA, salmon in a tank of water sometimes grow bigger in warmer water.
Link
 
2012-09-30 11:38:21 PM
Yet another baseless scaremongering prediction that will not come true and will be forgotten about in 5 years. How's all that flooding of New York and other coastal cities that was supposed to have happened by the 1980's working out? Oh you mean it didn't happen? Gotcha.
 
2012-09-30 11:48:25 PM
Of course it didn't happen -- as predicted, we ran out of food and fuel before 2000.
 
2012-09-30 11:48:28 PM
I think the idea that using techniques to catch only adult sized fish will produce smaller fish over time is a more solid hypothesis. Then evolution rewards the ones that bred smaller than the ones you catch.

Of course, the Japanese are going to kill off all the large blue-fin tuna, leaving only the can-worthy yellow-fin.
 
2012-10-01 12:15:16 AM

WelldeadLink: Despite the results of the computer simulations in TFA, salmon in a tank of water sometimes grow bigger in warmer water.
Link


Without data on the actual oxygen levels in the various tanks, this study is irrelevant.

What's up with that?

There's a strong but unsurprising parallel between this anti-AWG argument and the more direct ones we've come to know and loathe. They all make claims that fly in the face of well established scientific principles (the effects of water temperature on dissolved oxygen and metabolism on one hand, the effects of a known greenhouse gas on atmospheric temperatures on the other). And they all tend to ignore key parts of the issue at hand (the actual O2 levels from the experiment, the fact that orbital cycles have absolutely zero correlation with anthropogenic CO2 releases).

When the laws of physics conflict with some guy's blog, where do you think the error lies?
 
2012-10-01 12:16:44 AM

bestie1: At least some kind kind of sense with these claims. Warm temperatures mean bigger not smaller animals.


Should I believe the article in Nature or the guy who accidentally his first sentence? It's a tough choice.

taurusowner: Yet another baseless scaremongering prediction that will not come true and will be forgotten about in 5 years. How's all that flooding of New York and other coastal cities that was supposed to have happened by the 1980's working out? Oh you mean it didn't happen? Gotcha.


These guys should really back up their claims. They should do their research and get published in a prestigious science journal before making these types of predictions.
 
2012-10-01 12:51:13 AM

bestie1: Warm temperatures mean bigger not smaller animals.


No. With fish, warmer temperatures often = faster growing animals, but do not necessarily correlate to bigger specimens long term, and can have detrimental consequences for length of lifespan for many species, due to heightened metabolic rate.
A faster growth rate and quicker maturation time can also lead to smaller specimens long term because:
1. fish can become overcrowded more quickly due to specimens reaching maturity more quickly, and warmer water can mean a longer spawning period.
2. quick growth and early maturity/spawning is related to smaller size long term. (this is hinted at in the article)
One thing I disagree with in the article is that it will necessarily lead to fewer fish. It has the potential to actually lead to more individual fish, but of smaller sizes, though the overall yield of meat for fisheries could indeed be lower.

Cooler water specimens may grow slower but can still become bigger long term, and for many species raised on the cooler end of their temperature tolerance you will see longer lifespans.

This is why commercial fisheries usually raise fish at the higher end of their temperature tolerance, because they will eat more heavily and grow more quickly, and reach maturity quicker. This means they can quickly produce eating size and breeding size specimens. They're not looking for the largest longest lived specimen, they're looking for quick growth to a big enough size to eat and spawn. They also do generally inject oxygen both due to the fact that their water is so overloaded with fish it would be consumed too quickly otherwise, and also because more oxygen actually IS correlated to growth.
The warmer the water the lower the oxygen saturation point, the higher salinity the lower the saturation point (oceanwater hold less oxygen than saltwater; warm water holds less oxygen than cold water, regardless of salinity). And the more organisms the more oxygen is consumed, leaving less available overall.

As oceans warm they are able to hold less dissolved oxygen which is negatively correlated with size potential according to the article.
 
2012-10-01 12:53:06 AM
FTFA:
Fish species are expected to shrink in size by up to 24% because of global warming, say scientists.

What global warming?

www.woodfortrees.org
 
2012-10-01 12:56:52 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: Warmer water holds less oxygen


Is that like warm air holds more moisture, which is why we get heavier snow...AND drought?

Face it, global warming causes nothing but bad. If you think there is a single good thing about global warming, you should kill yourself.

The sky is falling!!
 
2012-10-01 12:58:12 AM
Also remember that warmer waters could lead to potential blooms of plankton, bacteria, and other organisms which do not individually use much oxygen, but in large groups will consume a very large quantity.

In one way a larger amount of some organisms such as plankton could be a boon for certain animals that consume them, but on the other hand can lead to more vast issues such as oxygen deprivation, especially in certain regions, excess pollution (they put off ammonia just like fish, and some also produce other chemicals or toxins), and compete with juvenile fish, many of which go through their own planktonic stage.
 
2012-10-01 01:24:56 AM
14% to 24% over fifty years of climate change and no mentio n of what temperature change model the scientists used to estimate an x degree change over those fifty years.

/meh
 
2012-10-01 01:32:05 AM

Smackledorfer: 14% to 24% over fifty years of climate change and no mentio n of what temperature change model the scientists used to estimate an x degree change over those fifty years.

/meh


Actually, it says under a high emission scenario.and even includes a link.
 
2012-10-01 01:48:07 AM

SevenizGud: common sense is an oxymoron: Warmer water holds less oxygen

Is that like warm air holds more moisture, which is why we get heavier snow...AND drought?


No.

Face it, global warming causes nothing but bad. If you think there is a single good thing about global warming, you should kill yourself.

The sky is falling!!


There are localized benefits associated with global warming. Anyone who denies that is a fool, or has an agenda.

There are far greater and more generalized harms associated with warming. Anyone who denies that is a fool, or has an agenda.

This is true regardless of the cause of the warming. Whether it's our fault or not, when you pit inexorable climate change against immovable infrastructure, something's going to give way, and it won't be the climate.
 
2012-10-01 01:50:31 AM

SevenizGud: FTFA:
Fish species are expected to shrink in size by up to 24% because of global warming, say scientists.

What global warming?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]


Oh, and also...

www.skepticalscience.com">
 
2012-10-01 02:18:26 AM

Baryogenesis: Smackledorfer: 14% to 24% over fifty years of climate change and no mentio n of what temperature change model the scientists used to estimate an x degree change over those fifty years.

/meh

Actually, it says under a high emission scenario.and even includes a link.


Thats what i get for skimming i guess.
 
2012-10-01 02:19:14 AM
It's not mainly global warming. It's the extreme overfishing many countries do that end up favoring smaller and smaller fish when it comes to being caught in nets.

www.thezigzagger.com

www.thezigzagger.com

www.thezigzagger.com

The documentary "Darwin's Nightmare" looks a bit into this.
 
2012-10-01 02:19:18 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: SevenizGud: common sense is an oxymoron: Warmer water holds less oxygen

Is that like warm air holds more moisture, which is why we get heavier snow...AND drought?

No.

Face it, global warming causes nothing but bad. If you think there is a single good thing about global warming, you should kill yourself.

The sky is falling!!

There are localized benefits associated with global warming. Anyone who denies that is a fool, or has an agenda.

There are far greater and more generalized harms associated with warming. Anyone who denies that is a fool, or has an agenda.

This is true regardless of the cause of the warming. Whether it's our fault or not, when you pit inexorable climate change against immovable infrastructure, something's going to give way, and it won't be the climate.


Don't sell Sevinizgud short - he can both be a fool and have an agenda. He could even be a moron with a foolish agenda, or much much worse. With enough derp, anything is possible.
 
2012-10-01 02:29:47 AM

HighZoolander: With enough derp, anything is possible.


Look at the two clowns running for president if you doubt that claim
 
2012-10-01 02:41:59 AM

WizardofToast: It's the extreme overfishing many countries do that end up favoring smaller and smaller fish when it comes to being caught in nets.


This, kind of, but not quite. Extreme overfishing means less and less ancient fish, the grandfathers of the ocean, are out there to be caught. Think of whaling. Whales are smaller now because the air temperature in heavily industrialized areas rose a fraction of a degree. It's because we killed all the biggest ones, and big animals take time to grow. And we're hunting their food, too, so they have less nutrients at their disposal.
 
2012-10-01 02:42:50 AM

HotWingAgenda: Whales are NOT smaller now because the air temperature in heavily industrialized areas rose a fraction of a degree.


Bah..
 
2012-10-01 03:24:44 AM
TFA title:

Climate change 'may shrink fish'

Climate change 'MAY make my dick bigger'
Climate change 'MAY make pussy taste like grape jelly.'
Climate change 'MAY cause a giant lizard to stomp Tokyo.'
Climate change 'MAY cause gold to sell for $100,000/oz.'
Climate change 'MAY cause Sofia Vergara to f**k my brains out.'
Climate change 'MAY give me a pony.'
Climate change 'MAY...'
 
2012-10-01 06:46:32 AM
Implied in headlines that say `X may do Y` is the possibility that X may NOT do Y and it is not decided whether it will. The language used need more certainty.

Take this example, the higgs boson. Tests were done until a certainty of something like 99.999% was obtained and at that point the scientists involved said "It`s possible we have found it but we have to do more tests" and it was only when a sigma 5 certainty (99.99997%) was established that they said "We have found it!" IT`S (very likely to be) REAL!

Compare that to what we get told with climate `science`

"The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it", the science is settled, IT`S REAL DENIER!

so there is up to 10% chance that we are NOT causing it? I`ll wait until people are a bit more sure before I tout it as fact.


Think of the sort of things people have to assert are real and get angry at people who say they don`t agree.

Heaven
White supremacy (male supremacy, whatever, basically any pre-existing right to be more important than another person allowing you to treat them badly)
AGW/ACC
etc etc etc

Most of them are some attempt to control someone elses behaviour though perceived power derived from moral right. If you ignore the particular thing they are hung up on, they all seem to say the same thing, "You have to do what I want because it is the ethical and moral thing to do. I am right. Don`t question any of my beliefs"


something smells fishy.
 
2012-10-01 06:48:09 AM
s


please add this above where it is needed, I found it on the floor after I posted.
 
2012-10-01 06:51:02 AM
As a scientist who studies fish and the effects of climate change I'm getting a kick ou...

..nah, not really. It's hard to watch a bunch of armchair scientists tell me that their guts tell themselves what's right better than years of hard work and dedication to the scientific process.
 
2012-10-01 06:54:21 AM

dready zim: Implied in headlines that say `X may do Y` is the possibility that X may NOT do Y and it is not decided whether it will. The language used need more certainty.

Take this example, the higgs boson. Tests were done until a certainty of something like 99.999% was obtained and at that point the scientists involved said "It`s possible we have found it but we have to do more tests" and it was only when a sigma 5 certainty (99.99997%) was established that they said "We have found it!" IT`S (very likely to be) REAL!

Compare that to what we get told with climate `science`

"The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it", the science is settled, IT`S REAL DENIER!

so there is up to 10% chance that we are NOT causing it? I`ll wait until people are a bit more sure before I tout it as fact.


Think of the sort of things people have to assert are real and get angry at people who say they don`t agree.

Heaven
White supremacy (male supremacy, whatever, basically any pre-existing right to be more important than another person allowing you to treat them badly)
AGW/ACC
etc etc etc

Most of them are some attempt to control someone elses behaviour though perceived power derived from moral right. If you ignore the particular thing they are hung up on, they all seem to say the same thing, "You have to do what I want because it is the ethical and moral thing to do. I am right. Don`t question any of my beliefs"


something smells fishy.


Science doesn't work the way you think it does. It makes me sad that you don't understand it. But you aren't alone. There are lot of the defiantly, even proudly ignorant out there. You have quite a few that like to wave the same banner you do, so I don't blame you to find it's call so appealing.
 
2012-10-01 07:18:30 AM
bbsimg.ngfiles.com

biatch shrank my fish
 
2012-10-01 07:23:54 AM

WizardofToast: It's not mainly global warming. It's the extreme overfishing many countries do that end up favoring smaller and smaller fish when it comes to being caught in nets.

[www.thezigzagger.com image 615x409]

[www.thezigzagger.com image 615x409]

[www.thezigzagger.com image 615x409]

The documentary "Darwin's Nightmare" looks a bit into this.


You know, I'm all for showing people how our fishing stock biomass has shrunk, however showing a series of pictures of fish with no notation, that are clearly of different species does not help the argument. Yes, we aren't catching cod or halibut like we used to. Do your photos mean to compare different species, or is it saying with the same unit effort, we are catching less by total weight? The former has no merit, the latter does.
 
2012-10-01 08:09:09 AM

unamused: TFA title:

Climate change 'may shrink fish'

Climate change 'MAY make my dick bigger'
Climate change 'MAY make pussy taste like grape jelly.'
Climate change 'MAY cause a giant lizard to stomp Tokyo.'
Climate change 'MAY cause gold to sell for $100,000/oz.'
Climate change 'MAY cause Sofia Vergara to f**k my brains out.'
Climate change 'MAY give me a pony.'
Climate change 'MAY...'


Therefore, Climate change is a crock and Al Gore is forced to kneel before Pope Benedict XVI, the only holder of true knowledge anywhere in the universe.

/There's this little thing science has, it's called falsifiability.
//When science is wrong, it works to correct it.
///When religion is wrong, it's wrong forever.
 
2012-10-01 09:10:46 AM
IlGreven:
/There's this little thing science has, it's called falsifiability.
//When science is wrong, it works to correct it.
///When religion is wrong, it's wrong forever

Yep. That's why warmer alarmism is a religion.
 
2012-10-01 09:14:25 AM
It's too bad fish don't have any method of, you know, MOVING to a place where the temperature is just right for them. Jesus - they don't even have to PACK.

Fish survived 10 K warmer than now just fine. They'll also survive this unusual cold spell, if we don't fish them to extinction.
 
2012-10-01 09:20:32 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: bestie1: At least some kind kind of sense with these claims. Warm temperatures mean bigger not smaller animals.

Read the article. Warmer water holds less oxygen, while at the same time boosting the metabolic rates of cold-blooded animals living in it.

Less oxygen + faster metabolism = smaller animals, not larger.


Right, because sharks were so much smaller in the Triassic.

Scaremongering articles like this make me snerk.

Lets muddy the water in this issue a little more?

That's better.
 
2012-10-01 09:34:35 AM

GeneralJim: Yep. That's why warmer alarmism is a religion.


That's a load of bullshiat. You know what people like you don't get? This article here represents. .01% of all the climate change research and its impacts to the environment out there. MOST of it doesn't make it outside of the scientific sphere because scientists are petrified of public when they know their results are controversial. I've had numerous colleagues receive death threats, have their results skewed by people with agendas, and their names dragged through the mud. MANY when approached by reporters now decline to talk because idiots like you don't get it and don't WANT to get it.
 
2012-10-01 09:35:40 AM

RedVentrue: Scaremongering articles like this make me snerk.


What's scaremongering about it?
 
2012-10-01 09:37:38 AM

GeneralJim: It's too bad fish don't have any method of, you know, MOVING to a place where the temperature is just right for them. Jesus - they don't even have to PACK.


Christ, you're an idiot. I suppose you believe that because a bird can fly it could live just about anywhere it wants, right? Temperature is the only factor, after all, that's necessary for life. Jesus, the system is complex. Why do you sit here and pretend it's simple?
 
2012-10-01 09:51:41 AM

gulogulo: RedVentrue: Scaremongering articles like this make me snerk.

What's scaremongering about it?


They didn't come right out and say it like the "Mail" would, but the implication was; "If the world gets warmer, all the fish will die!" Same trope with many AGW articles.
 
2012-10-01 09:58:35 AM

RedVentrue: They didn't come right out and say it like the "Mail" would, but the implication was; "If the world gets warmer, all the fish will die!" Same trope with many AGW articles.


No. If you want to read it like that you can. It was if the oceans get warmer there's good evidence that over all biomass will be reduced. Which has implications for our food supply. Should we not be reporting that evidence? Is it better to just not talk about it?
 
2012-10-01 10:02:34 AM
However, I'll acknowledge the global climate change deniers belong to a old breed of deniers. In 1940's, a smarter man than I will ever be wrote the following:

"One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise."

And it's as true today as it was then.
 
2012-10-01 10:06:47 AM

WizardofToast: It's not mainly global warming. It's the extreme overfishing many countries do that end up favoring smaller and smaller fish when it comes to being caught in nets.

[www.thezigzagger.com image 615x409]

[www.thezigzagger.com image 615x409]

[www.thezigzagger.com image 615x409]

The documentary "Darwin's Nightmare" looks a bit into this.


As much as I agree with you 100%, the bottom two pictures look like entirely different species of fish than the first picture. Overfishing is a huge problem.
 
2012-10-01 10:22:51 AM

gulogulo: However, I'll acknowledge the global climate change deniers belong to a old breed of deniers. In 1940's, a smarter man than I will ever be wrote the following:

"One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise."

And it's as true today as it was then.


We have been hearing the drum beat of doom for a long time now, and give it the same credence as other prognosticators.

gulogulo: RedVentrue: They didn't come right out and say it like the "Mail" would, but the implication was; "If the world gets warmer, all the fish will die!" Same trope with many AGW articles.

No. If you want to read it like that you can. It was if the oceans get warmer there's good evidence that over all biomass will be reduced. Which has implications for our food supply. Should we not be reporting that evidence? Is it better to just not talk about it?


Talk about it, but provide hard evidence that can be validated by anyone, and if making assumptions about the causes/ drivers of your theory, don't get all bent out of shape when someone questions the assumption.

Not speaking about you, but others.
 
2012-10-01 10:28:09 AM

RedVentrue: We have been hearing the drum beat of doom for a long time now, and give it the same credence as other prognosticators.


What, you think that people haven't been working very hard, unsung, to make sure his prognostics didn't happen? That's why people in the above research are heroes. Because people will blame them for saying this stuff, and the evidence IS compelling, while behind the scene others will take it seriously and work on mitigating these effects. It's an old story, but when you are doing things right, people just don't notice. They think it just 'happened' the way it was, with no management, no intervention, and that's just..well, that's just wearing blinders to all the little people doing this work for very little pay, and even less reward..
 
2012-10-01 10:31:20 AM

RedVentrue: Talk about it, but provide hard evidence that can be validated by anyone, and if making assumptions about the causes/ drivers of your theory, don't get all bent out of shape when someone questions the assumption.

Not speaking about you, but others.


Define: "hard evidence" and "validated by anyone?" Those are not scientific processes. A repeatable experiment, sure, and I am certain that they have an apt methods section that will tell you exactly how you can go about replicating these results. And what assumptions are you challenging?

Please remember that when you are reading these 'articles,' it has gone through two different interpretations: one from the PR department of the university, and then through a reporter, both iterations take it further away from the scientific field and into the 'digestible at the 5th grade reading level' public field. So, ignore the narrative of the article and look at the facts of the study beneath it.
 
2012-10-01 10:49:29 AM
Gulogulo - it's best to ignote redventure when he tries to get intellectual. You should see him try to make his pro-life argument based a smattering of pseudo-scientific rubbish and denial of how birth control pills and plan b work.
 
2012-10-01 10:50:56 AM
gulogulo:
GeneralJim: Yep. That's why warmer alarmism is a religion.

That's a load of bullshiat. You know what people like you don't get? This article here represents. .01% of all the climate change research and its impacts to the environment out there. MOST of it doesn't make it outside of the scientific sphere because scientists are petrified of public when they know their results are controversial. I've had numerous colleagues receive death threats, have their results skewed by people with agendas, and their names dragged through the mud. MANY when approached by reporters now decline to talk because idiots like you don't get it and don't WANT to get it.

Wow. This is a HUGE steaming pile of fail. Where to start? Okay, how about "scientist as bleating pussy?" I've got to admit, that's a new one on me. Not a single one of my scientist friends fits in that category. Too bad about you and yours.

Second, let's dip into the hypocrisy pool. First, you whine about scientists who have "their names dragged through the mud," and in the next sentence, call me an idiot. And "people like you" is one step away from "you people."

So, since YOU appear unwilling to address the issue, and prefer to shake your tiny Internet fist in impotent rage, allow me to ask you a few questions:

1. What does it mean, in terms of causation, when the correlation factor between two quantities is less than thirty?
2. What does it mean when the factor you hypothesize as a cause of another FOLLOWS that factor?
3. What does it mean when the predictions of your models fall outside the error bars by a factor > 3?
4. Under what circumstances is it scientifically valid to alter the data to fit your hypothesis?
5. Should chief researchers be scientists in the field under study?
6. Should chief researchers have large amounts of income dependent upon the research reaching specific conclusions?

/ And, BTW, "gulogulo" means "jumbled mess" in Tagalog. Just sayin'
 
2012-10-01 10:55:34 AM
gulogulo:
GeneralJim: It's too bad fish don't have any method of, you know, MOVING to a place where the temperature is just right for them. Jesus - they don't even have to PACK.

Christ, you're an idiot. I suppose you believe that because a bird can fly it could live just about anywhere it wants, right? Temperature is the only factor, after all, that's necessary for life. Jesus, the system is complex. Why do you sit here and pretend it's simple?

Because twatwaffles like you keep pretending that the following is a dangerous heatwave:

i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-01 11:00:56 AM

GeneralJim: Not a single one of my scientist friends fits in that category.


Yeah, how many of them have been publicly published in a controversial area? If so, link to their publications please. And let me know what they went through post publishing it. Sorry if getting death threats from wackos and thinking 'maybe I don't want to die for my work' makes you a pussy in your book.

1. What does it mean, in terms of causation, when the correlation factor between two quantities is less than thirty?
2. What does it mean when the factor you hypothesize as a cause of another FOLLOWS that factor?
3. What does it mean when the predictions of your models fall outside the error bars by a factor > 3?
4. Under what circumstances is it scientifically valid to alter the data to fit your hypothesis?
5. Should chief researchers be scientists in the field under study?
6. Should chief researchers have large amounts of income dependent upon the research reaching specific conclusions?



I need to see the data you are specifically referencing here to make any sort of response. A result of 80% accuracy is fantastic in some realms of science, and in others not so much. So 30 is a meaningless number without the entire story. Correlation is not causation. How was correlation measured? Under which scientific method. What error bars are we talking about? Whose predictions? Are you referring to the climategate presumed "data alteration?' because that has been debunked thoroughly as not being what happened at all. I don't understand your fifth question, and lastly, most of the time, we are paid before we make conclusions.

Finally, good science will beget more funding. It's more based off of your ability to publish than it is what your results say. Believe me, if there was compelling evidence that all this climate change business was bogus, then the journals would be eating. it. up. There would be money thrown at that like no one's business, because we LIKE to disprove the status quo. We like to challenge it. I WORK in this science, and I will tell you straight out: there is no conspiracy. There's no one telling me to fudge my data. There's no pressure to create a certain narrative.

You say really stupid things, and thus, yes, you are an idiot.
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report