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.

(The New York Times)   On a tiny island off Washington State, scientist find an acidic ocean, linked to rising carbon dioxide levels, as well as fewer mussels, barnacles, and seabirds. So, yes, everybody should panic   (nytimes.com) divider line 151
    More: Scary, atmospheric carbon dioxide, University of Washington, oceans, apex predator, islands  
•       •       •

11526 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Oct 2012 at 11:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-07 01:28:03 PM
Oh, goody goody; TFA says "Dr. Pfister and Dr. Wootton [are] testing the pH of water samples." Finally I'll get some answers!

So -- what was the pH at the start of the study? -- TFA doesn't say. :-(
And -- what was the pH more recently? -- TFA doesn't say :-(
Umm - what has been the pH historically? -- TFA doesn't say :-/

But it's "10 times as acidic as what accepted climate change models were predicting." (Are those the "settled science" models so far off the mark?) Anyway, pH numbers run from 0 to 14. What's "10 times"?!? Is a pH of 7.1 (alkaline) 10 times as acidic as a pH of 7.2 ??? Why YES, Yes it is!

Stacy Solie (reporter) blows off about how DANGEROUS(!!!) this all is and how the pH IS BEING MEASURED(!!) and still can't find any ink to report any numbers -- not any pH numbers at all -- is clearly hiding something.
 
2012-10-07 01:28:08 PM

BronyMedic: What scientists are questioning the climate consensus? What are these names, and what bodies do they represent?
What peer review has questioned that?


It was in the linked article by the island scientists themselves. Stop hyperventilating. Seriously.


BronyMedic: [other presumptuous rant about how I don't care]


Um, no all the assumptions you just made about how i personally don't care, and want to ignore the problem are not true.
 
2012-10-07 01:32:01 PM
Came for the Doctor Who reference, left feeling disapoint
 
2012-10-07 01:37:39 PM

Vectron: Here are some notions. We need sustainable population growth. Caucaisans around the world are already doing there part. We are reproducing at less than replacement levels.


Unfortunately I agree this may eventually be a necessary discussion. There are some very serious ecological problems that are definitely caused by humans, that get very little air time. Because everyone who supposedly "cares" sooooo damn much is too busy wallowing in self-serving partisan self-righteousness over the one issue of climate change. (that goes for both sides) The depopulation of the worlds oceans from overfishing comes to mind, as one.

Unfortunately we are hung up on feel-good things like using CF bulbs. "Hey I'm doing my part!" Yeah, you could start doing your part by not pointing fingers at someone else every time the subject comes up. "This is all your side's fault. My side doesn't cause global warming. Derp." And on it goes.
 
2012-10-07 01:40:56 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Vectron: Here are some notions. We need sustainable population growth. Caucaisans around the world are already doing there part. We are reproducing at less than replacement levels.

Unfortunately I agree this may eventually be a necessary discussion. There are some very serious ecological problems that are definitely caused by humans, that get very little air time. Because everyone who supposedly "cares" sooooo damn much is too busy wallowing in self-serving partisan self-righteousness over the one issue of climate change. (that goes for both sides) The depopulation of the worlds oceans from overfishing comes to mind, as one.

Unfortunately we are hung up on feel-good things like using CF bulbs. "Hey I'm doing my part!" Yeah, you could start doing your part by not pointing fingers at someone else every time the subject comes up. "This is all your side's fault. My side doesn't cause global warming. Derp." And on it goes.



and so it goes.
 
2012-10-07 01:44:51 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Vectron: Here are some notions. We need sustainable population growth. Caucaisans around the world are already doing there part. We are reproducing at less than replacement levels.

Unfortunately I agree this may eventually be a necessary discussion. There are some very serious ecological problems that are definitely caused by humans, that get very little air time. Because everyone who supposedly "cares" sooooo damn much is too busy wallowing in self-serving partisan self-righteousness over the one issue of climate change. (that goes for both sides) The depopulation of the worlds oceans from overfishing comes to mind, as one.

Unfortunately we are hung up on feel-good things like using CF bulbs. "Hey I'm doing my part!" Yeah, you could start doing your part by not pointing fingers at someone else every time the subject comes up. "This is all your side's fault. My side doesn't cause global warming. Derp." And on it goes.


I get what you're saying - 'both sides are bad', 'climate science isn't established enough for anything more than tentative conclusions' (from your earlier post), and 'other problems are more important'.

It'd be a lot more convincing though if you didn't sound so concerned, and had any legitimate scientific expertise to back up what you're saying.
 
2012-10-07 01:45:29 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: It was in the linked article by the island scientists themselves. Stop hyperventilating. Seriously.


I'm calling you out for denying climate change. Back your statement about the Climate Change consensus not being true, don't avoid the question.

As for your "Go RTFA!", there's no study in there. Only an informative blurb about a study in 2000 which may be flawed. There's nothing in there about published peer review, or legitimate problems.

Link the published criticism and studies, or name the scientists which are questioning the findings. I'm not going to believe anything just because you, or a news article says so.

ThrobblefootSpectre: Um, no all the assumptions you just made about how i personally don't care, and want to ignore the problem are not true.


Riiiiight. I called you out on your attitude of procrastination and denial. Not that you don't "personally care".

ThrobblefootSpectre: Vectron: Here are some notions. We need sustainable population growth. Caucaisans around the world are already doing there part. We are reproducing at less than replacement levels.

Unfortunately I agree this may eventually be a necessary discussion. There are some very serious ecological problems that are definitely caused by humans, that get very little air time.


Sure, it needs discussion. However, how to limit growth of human societies often leads to very bad solutions to the problem.
 
2012-10-07 01:55:19 PM

USP .45: The ocean current that travels past that island comes from China, yet so many libs blaming America.


Oooh, I see we have REAL scientist with us.

Pray elucidate, Friend.
 
2012-10-07 01:55:54 PM

Mugato: This is what I don't get.

I can understand the oil companies and CEOs of any corporation who wants zero regulation on anything they do pretending to deny global warming. To do otherwise would be to fail their gods, the shareholders.But why do the rest of you fight so hard against what scientists who know a lot more than you do have to say?

I have no vested interest in the issue either way but I tend to believe what the scientific community has to say over those whose own personal financial gain depends on them denying science.


it's team mentality. us vs. them
 
2012-10-07 01:57:54 PM

HighZoolander: I get what you're saying - 'both sides are bad', 'climate science isn't established enough for anything more than tentative conclusions' (from your earlier post), and 'other problems are more important'.


I only said that the conclusions just of these particular scientists are tentative. Not that climate change (the big overall subject) isn't happening. Climate change does seem to be accelerating. No doubt about the evidence there. And it seems a very likely conclusion that human activities are causing it. I don't know why you have assumed any different about my stance on the topic.
 
2012-10-07 01:58:33 PM

Mugato: I can understand the oil companies and CEOs of any corporation who wants zero regulation on anything they do pretending to deny global warming. To do otherwise would be to fail their gods, the shareholders.But why do the rest of you fight so hard against what scientists who know a lot more than you do have to say?


Funny thing is, in private those same men (and they are almost all men) readily admit global warming, because it opens up the Arctic and melting permafrost plays hell with pipeline infrastructure. It's in public that they pretend they know nothing, because that would imply the viability or justification for carbon taxes.

/work with energy execs
 
2012-10-07 02:01:56 PM

Jacobin: There's an ocean on an island? How did they do that?


jaytkay: They found an ocean on an island? Interesting.


Howabout an island on a lake on an island on a lake on an island?
pedanticposts.com
 
2012-10-07 02:07:10 PM

BronyMedic: Riiiiight. I called you out on your attitude of procrastination and denial. Not that you don't "personally care".


Procrastination? Denial? I'm a vegetarian because a meat diet causes more emissions than transportation or industry. I drive less than 100 miles a month in a sub-compact. And my household electric bill is around $65 in the summer.

I would wager very few urban residents of the first world are more personally proactive about the environment than I am. (I suppose maybe ELF guys smashing SUV's could be said to be more proactive but that's a different tactic altogether.) And no, I don't count the hobby of "blaming the other side" as being proactive, sorry.

But sure, I am the environmental bad guy because I don't participate in the knee-jerk rightouesgasm.

Brony, sometimes you are capable of intelligent conversation. This isn't one of those times. You are jumping waaaaay off the rails because of a post I still considerable a very reasoned and calm statement on the subject.
 
2012-10-07 02:09:02 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: I only said that the conclusions just of these particular scientists are tentative.


piperTom: Oh, goody goody; TFA says "Dr. Pfister and Dr. Wootton [are] testing the pH of water samples." Finally I'll get some answers!



Realize that articles in the popular press really are a pale (and more often than not misleading) shadow of the scientific literature. Said press is usually really poor at linking to the scientific literature (which is behind a paywall most times anyway). If you're interested in the actual science, you have to actually dig a bit yourself if you want that info.

However, the article gives us the clues we need: PNAS, 2008, Wootton and Pfeister as authors. If you don't have access across a paywall, you can sometimes luck out on one of the author's webpages. Fortunately, this is the case for this paper and it can be found here. Happy reading.
 
2012-10-07 02:11:22 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: HighZoolander: I get what you're saying - 'both sides are bad', 'climate science isn't established enough for anything more than tentative conclusions' (from your earlier post), and 'other problems are more important'.

I only said that the conclusions just of these particular scientists are tentative. Not that climate change (the big overall subject) isn't happening. Climate change does seem to be accelerating. No doubt about the evidence there. And it seems a very likely conclusion that human activities are causing it. I don't know why you have assumed any different about my stance on the topic.


I may have misread you, but it was mostly because you said this:

ThrobblefootSpectre: Unfortunately I agree this may eventually be a necessary discussion. There are some very serious ecological problems that are definitely caused by humans, that get very little air time. Because everyone who supposedly "cares" sooooo damn much is too busy wallowing in self-serving partisan self-righteousness over the one issue of climate change. (that goes for both sides) The depopulation of the worlds oceans from overfishing comes to mind, as one.


The implication is that if other problems are definitely caused by humans, than climate change isn't as definitely caused by humans. I think we may agree that the evidence there leaves just about no room for doubt.

I also don't follow at all why you'd think overfishing is a more serious problem than acidifying the ocean that all the fish live in. I'm not saying that overfishing isn't a problem, but it hardly seems like a worse problem.

So, it sounded like you were casting doubt on the strength of the evidence for human-caused climate change, while at the same time emphasizing that other problems were more pressing/important, which also undermines the seriousness of climate change.
 
2012-10-07 02:12:07 PM
This is a perfect example of how this global warming science works. You take data from one tiny spot and you extrapolate the findings so that they represent the future of all of the oceans.
 
2012-10-07 02:17:21 PM

chuckufarlie: This is a perfect example of how this global warming science works. You take data from one tiny spot and you extrapolate the findings so that they represent the future of all of the oceans.


people.virginia.edu
 
2012-10-07 02:22:25 PM

HighZoolander: So, it sounded like you were casting doubt on the strength of the evidence for human-caused climate change


No But just acknowledging that doubt exists. Not from you or I, but from some people. People who are wrong. I was pointing out that there are other issues, which even the "horrible ebil repuglicans" don't deny are happening.

You are trying to hard to purposely look for ideological enemies. Part of the point of my post was that I think that may be 90% percent of the blockade (on both sides) in trying to discuss environmental issues constructively.
 
2012-10-07 02:24:37 PM

chuckufarlie: This is a perfect example of how this global warming science works. You take data from one tiny spot hundreds of studies examining different aspects of the concept under question and you extrapolate the findings so that they represent the future of all of the oceans. to come up with a general unifying principle.

 

Fixed it for ya.
 
2012-10-07 02:25:30 PM

T-Servo: Um, except that any current CCS technology is so energy intensive that it's not viable... except planting trees. But sure, blame the scientists.


Planting trees isn't viable, because even though it's the most compact sequesterization, it takes too long for the trees to grow to the ideal size, so it loses out over growing, harvesting, and burying less space-efficient but faster-growing plants like sugar cane and switchgrass. The sticking point remains the intractable determination of the climatologist community to allow the pursuit of such geo-engineering processes, instead burying them beneath voluminous claims that they involve filling the skies with sulfur and the seas with iron, rather than farming, harvesting, and sequestering large amounts of plant matter.

/google "geo-engineering NPR" for a sample of news articles
//you will not see one mention of carbon burial, instead only of atmospheric sulfur dioxide releases and iron fertilizing
 
2012-10-07 02:29:21 PM

Tatterdemalian: T-Servo: Um, except that any current CCS technology is so energy intensive that it's not viable... except planting trees. But sure, blame the scientists.

Planting trees isn't viable, because even though it's the most compact sequesterization, it takes too long for the trees to grow to the ideal size, so it loses out over growing, harvesting, and burying less space-efficient but faster-growing plants like sugar cane and switchgrass. The sticking point remains the intractable determination of the climatologist community to allow the pursuit of such geo-engineering processes, instead burying them beneath voluminous claims that they involve filling the skies with sulfur and the seas with iron, rather than farming, harvesting, and sequestering large amounts of plant matter.

/google "geo-engineering NPR" for a sample of news articles
//you will not see one mention of carbon burial, instead only of atmospheric sulfur dioxide releases and iron fertilizing



May I suggest that some of what you're seeing has to do with the disconnect between climatology and geo-engineering as disciplines? You will likely find negligible climatology research dealing with engineering of any kind.
 
2012-10-07 02:30:31 PM

LiberalEastCoastElitist: chuckufarlie: This is a perfect example of how this global warming science works. You take data from one tiny spot hundreds of studies examining different aspects of the concept under question and you extrapolate the findings so that they represent the future of all of the oceans. to come up with a general unifying principle. 

Fixed it for ya.


Sorry that you do not believe in science. Maybe we should send you off with the bible belt loonies who think that the planet is only 6000 years old.

As for the rest of your post - ignorant and inaccurate.
 
2012-10-07 02:35:05 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: HighZoolander: So, it sounded like you were casting doubt on the strength of the evidence for human-caused climate change

No But just acknowledging that doubt exists. Not from you or I, but from some people. People who are wrong. I was pointing out that there are other issues, which even the "horrible ebil repuglicans" don't deny are happening.

You are trying to hard to purposely look for ideological enemies. Part of the point of my post was that I think that may be 90% percent of the blockade (on both sides) in trying to discuss environmental issues constructively.


yes, we all know that science is about absolutes and anyone who disagrees should be shot.

All of this for an average temperature increase of less than one degree C since 1850. Most people would call that extremely stable, but I am sure that you think that they are wrong.

On top of that, the proxie data for the years prior to 1850 has a margin of error that is greater than the change recorded since 1850.

Oh yeah, you guys hate it when somebody tosses the facts in your faces.
 
2012-10-07 02:35:09 PM

Damnhippyfreak: Tatterdemalian: T-Servo: Um, except that any current CCS technology is so energy intensive that it's not viable... except planting trees. But sure, blame the scientists.

Planting trees isn't viable, because even though it's the most compact sequesterization, it takes too long for the trees to grow to the ideal size, so it loses out over growing, harvesting, and burying less space-efficient but faster-growing plants like sugar cane and switchgrass. The sticking point remains the intractable determination of the climatologist community to allow the pursuit of such geo-engineering processes, instead burying them beneath voluminous claims that they involve filling the skies with sulfur and the seas with iron, rather than farming, harvesting, and sequestering large amounts of plant matter.

/google "geo-engineering NPR" for a sample of news articles
//you will not see one mention of carbon burial, instead only of atmospheric sulfur dioxide releases and iron fertilizing


May I suggest that some of what you're seeing has to do with the disconnect between climatology and geo-engineering as disciplines? You will likely find negligible climatology research dealing with engineering of any kind.


I forgot to mention that the terms you may be looking for are carbon capture and sequestration. Geoengineering may be referring to a small subset of this that tends to deal with very wide-scale, massive (and largely speculative) projects.
 
2012-10-07 02:35:37 PM

chuckufarlie: LiberalEastCoastElitist: chuckufarlie: This is a perfect example of how this global warming science works. You take data from one tiny spot hundreds of studies examining different aspects of the concept under question and you extrapolate the findings so that they represent the future of all of the oceans. to come up with a general unifying principle. 

Fixed it for ya.

Sorry that you do not believe in science. Maybe we should send you off with the bible belt loonies who think that the planet is only 6000 years old.

As for the rest of your post - ignorant and inaccurate.


You seem confused. So sorry.
 
2012-10-07 02:35:57 PM

Jacobin: There's an ocean on an island? How did they do that?


Confirmation bias
 
2012-10-07 02:36:06 PM
The bottom line is the truth is what whomever has the most money says.

Scientists could come to 100% consensus and they would just be ignored because the people lining the politicians pockets care more about short-term profits than long-term viability of the planet.

No vengeful god is needed when we will soon be living in a hell of our own making.
 
2012-10-07 02:37:00 PM

LiberalEastCoastElitist: chuckufarlie: LiberalEastCoastElitist: chuckufarlie: This is a perfect example of how this global warming science works. You take data from one tiny spot hundreds of studies examining different aspects of the concept under question and you extrapolate the findings so that they represent the future of all of the oceans. to come up with a general unifying principle. 

Fixed it for ya.

Sorry that you do not believe in science. Maybe we should send you off with the bible belt loonies who think that the planet is only 6000 years old.

As for the rest of your post - ignorant and inaccurate.

You seem confused. So sorry.


me? You are the one who "thought" that you have fixed my post. Maybe you are not confused, maybe you are just an idiot.
 
2012-10-07 02:38:05 PM

Mugato: This is what I don't get.

I can understand the oil companies and CEOs of any corporation who wants zero regulation on anything they do pretending to deny global warming. To do otherwise would be to fail their gods, the shareholders.But why do the rest of you fight so hard against what scientists who know a lot more than you do have to say?

I have no vested interest in the issue either way but I tend to believe what the scientific community has to say over those whose own personal financial gain depends on them denying science.


How many times do carbon taxes have to ne explained to you?
 
2012-10-07 02:38:44 PM

LiberalEastCoastElitist: chuckufarlie: LiberalEastCoastElitist: chuckufarlie: This is a perfect example of how this global warming science works. You take data from one tiny spot hundreds of studies examining different aspects of the concept under question and you extrapolate the findings so that they represent the future of all of the oceans. to come up with a general unifying principle. 

Fixed it for ya.

Sorry that you do not believe in science. Maybe we should send you off with the bible belt loonies who think that the planet is only 6000 years old.

As for the rest of your post - ignorant and inaccurate.

You seem confused. So sorry.


You shouldn't make fun of chuckufarlie. Early onset dementia is a sad, sad thing, and they get confused and frustrated easily when dealing with simple concepts..
 
2012-10-07 02:39:09 PM

nmemkha: The bottom line is the truth is what whomever has the most money says.

Scientists could come to 100% consensus and they would just be ignored because the people lining the politicians pockets care more about short-term profits than long-term viability of the planet.

No vengeful god is needed when we will soon be living in a hell of our own making.


It is obvious that you have no grasp of the facts surrounding this issue. A living hell?? That is just dumb.

Oh yea, another thing, consensus has no relevance in science. It is not a popularity contest.
 
2012-10-07 02:40:47 PM

chuckufarlie: LiberalEastCoastElitist: chuckufarlie: LiberalEastCoastElitist: chuckufarlie: This is a perfect example of how this global warming science works. You take data from one tiny spot hundreds of studies examining different aspects of the concept under question and you extrapolate the findings so that they represent the future of all of the oceans. to come up with a general unifying principle. 

Fixed it for ya.

Sorry that you do not believe in science. Maybe we should send you off with the bible belt loonies who think that the planet is only 6000 years old.

As for the rest of your post - ignorant and inaccurate.

You seem confused. So sorry.

me? You are the one who "thought" that you have fixed my post. Maybe you are not confused, maybe you are just an idiot.


5/10. You had me going for a bit.
 
2012-10-07 02:41:24 PM

chuckufarlie: Oh yea, another thing, consensus has no relevance in science.


www.lolwut.com
 
2012-10-07 02:42:03 PM

BronyMedic: LiberalEastCoastElitist: chuckufarlie: LiberalEastCoastElitist: chuckufarlie: This is a perfect example of how this global warming science works. You take data from one tiny spot hundreds of studies examining different aspects of the concept under question and you extrapolate the findings so that they represent the future of all of the oceans. to come up with a general unifying principle. 

Fixed it for ya.

Sorry that you do not believe in science. Maybe we should send you off with the bible belt loonies who think that the planet is only 6000 years old.

As for the rest of your post - ignorant and inaccurate.

You seem confused. So sorry.

You shouldn't make fun of chuckufarlie. Early onset dementia is a sad, sad thing, and they get confused and frustrated easily when dealing with simple concepts..


You think that I am confused? I provided the actual facts;
There has been an average temperature increase of less than one degree C since 1850. Most people would call that extremely stable, but I am sure that you think that they are wrong.

On top of that, the proxie data for the years prior to 1850 has a margin of error that is greater than the change recorded since 1850.

You are the one who is confused. You are getting all worked up over an extremely tiny increase in temperature and you have no idea when it started or why.
 
2012-10-07 02:42:41 PM

LiberalEastCoastElitist: chuckufarlie: LiberalEastCoastElitist: chuckufarlie: LiberalEastCoastElitist: chuckufarlie: This is a perfect example of how this global warming science works. You take data from one tiny spot hundreds of studies examining different aspects of the concept under question and you extrapolate the findings so that they represent the future of all of the oceans. to come up with a general unifying principle. 

Fixed it for ya.

Sorry that you do not believe in science. Maybe we should send you off with the bible belt loonies who think that the planet is only 6000 years old.

As for the rest of your post - ignorant and inaccurate.

You seem confused. So sorry.

me? You are the one who "thought" that you have fixed my post. Maybe you are not confused, maybe you are just an idiot.

5/10. You had me going for a bit.


Idiot it is.
 
2012-10-07 02:43:37 PM

chuckufarlie: All of this for an average temperature increase of less than one degree C since 1850.


It's not going to take very many degrees C to fark up our ecosystem in huge ways. Maybe 1 doesn't sound like a big number, but when playing russian roulette, pulling the trigger one time is dangerously too many.
 
2012-10-07 02:44:45 PM

nmemkha: chuckufarlie: Oh yea, another thing, consensus has no relevance in science.

[www.lolwut.com image 260x290]


"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . .

"I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. ."

(Michael Crichton, "'Aliens Cause Global Warming'," reprinted in Wall Street Journal, November 7, 2008.)
 
2012-10-07 02:45:59 PM

Mugato: This is what I don't get.

I can understand the oil companies and CEOs of any corporation who wants zero regulation on anything they do pretending to deny global warming. To do otherwise would be to fail their gods, the shareholders.But why do the rest of you fight so hard against what scientists who know a lot more than you do have to say?

I have no vested interest in the issue either way but I tend to believe what the scientific community has to say over those whose own personal financial gain depends on them denying science.


Because these are the same scientist that teach evolution and that the universe started from the big bang. They see science as the enemy of their religion. It is easy for big business to ge these people on the bandwagon that scientist lie since they really want it to be true.
 
2012-10-07 02:47:08 PM
They found the water around Tatoosh and along nearby coastlines to be 10 times as acidic as what accepted climate change models were predicting.

...so, instead of trying to find out why this specific island is showing so much more dissolved CO2 change than the predicted models (and observations worldwide), they start extrapolating the climate change models to even more fantastic scenarios.

They also go completely nuts and assume that the small dissolved CO2 (0.1 pH over the course of the study) change they see is causing huge swings in local populations of all sorts of animals - when most oceans see that much change in an hourly basis, and some coastal areas often see natural change of as much as a full 1.0 pH swing per day.

Of course, we 'll have to wait for the follow up study, which will probably show something like "the population swings were caused by parasites and bacteria brought to the island by some scientists who came there each year to study the animals..."

Remember "climate change is killing all of the frogs!" which turned out to mostly be "frogs dying because of fungus spread around the world by careless scientists."
 
2012-10-07 02:47:43 PM
Let's fix this statement:

chuckufarlie: You are the one who is confused. You are getting all worked up over an extremely tiny increase in global temperature. and you have no idea when it started or why.


Would you like to link legitimate, peer reviewed Scientific Evidence which disprove this, or am I supposed to believe chuckufarlie, a FARK poster who was called out for sockpuppeting in Climate Change threads in the past?

chuckufarlie: Idiot it is.


You really shouldn't talk that bad about yourself. It's really sad. All you have to do is stop repeating the same FUD you always do. It's almost like you're a glutton for punishment for getting smacked down.
 
2012-10-07 02:47:56 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: chuckufarlie: All of this for an average temperature increase of less than one degree C since 1850.

It's not going to take very many degrees C to fark up our ecosystem in huge ways. Maybe 1 doesn't sound like a big number, but when playing russian roulette, pulling the trigger one time is dangerously too many.


yes, here it comes. Another bozo with no idea what is going on but he has the "intelligence" to compare temperature increases to bullets. If just one of you posers had anything at all to ad to an intelligent conversation. you have failed to do so.

You have no idea what it would take to mess up our ecosystem. The "idea" that one or two degrees change could do so is laughable.
 
2012-10-07 02:48:28 PM

cig-mkr: FTA: It was also once a whaling base for the Makah tribe, who maintain treaty rights to the land.
When was the last time the Makah tribe sacrificed a virgin to the sea? Maybe the Gods are angry?


Nic cage golt killed by their bee god, but it didnt bring back their damned honey
 
2012-10-07 02:50:12 PM

chuckufarlie: nmemkha: chuckufarlie: Oh yea, another thing, consensus has no relevance in science.

[www.lolwut.com image 260x290]

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . .

"I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. ."

(Michael Crichton, "'Aliens Cause Global Warming'," reprinted in Wall Street Journal, November 7, 2008.)


people.virginia.edu
people.virginia.edu
people.virginia.edu
 
2012-10-07 02:50:29 PM

BronyMedic: Let's fix this statement:

chuckufarlie: You are the one who is confused. You are getting all worked up over an extremely tiny increase in global temperature. and you have no idea when it started or why.

Would you like to link legitimate, peer reviewed Scientific Evidence which disprove this, or am I supposed to believe chuckufarlie, a FARK poster who was called out for sockpuppeting in Climate Change threads in the past?

chuckufarlie: Idiot it is.

You really shouldn't talk that bad about yourself. It's really sad. All you have to do is stop repeating the same FUD you always do. It's almost like you're a glutton for punishment for getting smacked down.


This is how I know that you have no idea about this. The information that I provided comes directly from the IPCC reports. Are you familiar with the IPCC reports? Obviously not. Anybody who questions the information that I posted is just ignorant of the situation.
 
2012-10-07 02:51:51 PM

cirby: Remember "climate change is killing all of the frogs!" which turned out to mostly be "frogs dying because of fungus spread around the world by careless scientists."


Neither. I remember frogs being killed by pesticides and acid rain, mostly.
 
2012-10-07 02:52:16 PM

BronyMedic: chuckufarlie: nmemkha: chuckufarlie: Oh yea, another thing, consensus has no relevance in science.

[www.lolwut.com image 260x290]

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . .

"I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. ."

(Michael Crichton, "'Aliens Cause Global Warming'," reprinted in Wall Street Journal, November 7, 2008.)

[people.virginia.edu image 500x75]
[people.virginia.edu image 500x75]
[people.virginia.edu image 500x75]


Shame on the Wall Street Journal! I guess they should be ashamed of themselves. Or maybe you just have no idea at all of what you are talking about.
 
2012-10-07 02:53:48 PM

chuckufarlie: yes, here it comes. Another bozo with no idea what is going on but he has the "intelligence" to compare temperature increases to bullets. If just one of you posers had anything at all to ad to an intelligent conversation. you have failed to do so.


people.virginia.edu

chuckufarlie: You have no idea what it would take to mess up our ecosystem. The "idea" that one or two degrees change could do so is laughable.


people.virginia.edu
people.virginia.edu
 
2012-10-07 02:53:49 PM

chuckufarlie: yes, here it comes. Another bozo with no idea what is going on but he has the "intelligence" to compare temperature increases to bullets.


Wow, you are as maniacal as BronyMedic. I'll let you two discuss it. You were made for each other.
 
2012-10-07 02:54:55 PM

chuckufarlie: This is how I know that you have no idea about this. The information that I provided comes directly from the IPCC reports. Are you familiar with the IPCC reports? Obviously not. Anybody who questions the information that I posted is just ignorant of the situation.


Care to post that information? Or are you just making a.....

people.virginia.edu
 
2012-10-07 02:55:05 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: chuckufarlie: yes, here it comes. Another bozo with no idea what is going on but he has the "intelligence" to compare temperature increases to bullets.

Wow, you are as maniacal as BronyMedic. I'll let you two discuss it. You were made for each other.


this from the idiot who compares a bullet to temperature change.
 
Displayed 50 of 151 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report