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.

(Scientific American)   Don't agree with a government report on climate change? Just do what Cato does: Substitute your own conclusions and publish a counterfeit version   (scientificamerican.com) divider line 74
    More: Asinine, contrarians, National Climatic Data Center, primary sources, Cato Institute, denialism, bar charts, dietary supplements, climate change  
•       •       •

3333 clicks; posted to Geek » on 23 Oct 2012 at 11:33 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-23 09:51:11 AM  
So you see, Privitization really does fix this global warming thing.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-10-23 10:04:29 AM  
Substitute your own conclusions and publish a counterfeit version

Stop that. It's too early in the morning to remind me of reading NHTSA literature regurgitations. I mean literature reviews.
 
2012-10-23 11:35:28 AM  
fartbongo
 
2012-10-23 11:37:43 AM  
Yes, but somewhere a billionaire is making a slightly less obscene profit, so the Cato Institute felt compelled to act.
 
2012-10-23 11:44:57 AM  
In before "But, but, but, climategate"

/would love to see the usual crowd of naysayers try to defend this
 
2012-10-23 11:48:57 AM  
It says Cato institute right on the front cover. Where's the beef?
 
2012-10-23 11:52:24 AM  

HighZoolander: In before "But, but, but, climategate"

/would love to see the usual crowd of naysayers try to defend this


Well, obviously the suppression of contradictory evidence is so great that the only mean left to convey the information is through deception and data manipulation. The "scientists" working for the government may explain all of their methods for deciding what data to use, what not to use, and why, but the fact remains that they are only publishing reports that support the interpretation of anthropogenic climate change. The data that they discriminated against and declined to use, when looked at properly through the lens of free enterprise and capitalism, can clearly be presented in a way that arrives at a very different conclusion: climate is not changing, because if it was, it would cost lots of people lots of money. Hence, the need to use deception. It's the only way to be honest.
 
2012-10-23 11:53:00 AM  

BiffDangler: It says Cato institute right on the front cover. Where's the beef?


Doesn't matter. This is a time of rage for some. Just lash and out and be angsty in general.
 
2012-10-23 11:55:00 AM  

Erix: Well, obviously the suppression of contradictory evidence is so great that the only mean left to convey the information is through deception and data manipulation. The "scientists" working for the government may explain all of their methods for deciding what data to use, what not to use, and why, but the fact remains that they are only publishing reports that support the interpretation of anthropogenic climate change. The data that they discriminated against and declined to use, when looked at properly through the lens of free enterprise and capitalism, can clearly be presented in a way that arrives at a very different conclusion: climate is not changing, because if it was, it would cost lots of people lots of money. Hence, the need to use deception. It's the only way to be honest.


Nearly smacked ya. Nearly.
 
2012-10-23 11:59:25 AM  

Erix: HighZoolander: In before "But, but, but, climategate"

/would love to see the usual crowd of naysayers try to defend this

Well, obviously the suppression of contradictory evidence is so great that the only mean left to convey the information is through deception and data manipulation. The "scientists" working for the government may explain all of their methods for deciding what data to use, what not to use, and why, but the fact remains that they are only publishing reports that support the interpretation of anthropogenic climate change. The data that they discriminated against and declined to use, when looked at properly through the lens of free enterprise and capitalism, can clearly be presented in a way that arrives at a very different conclusion: climate is not changing, because if it was, it would cost lots of people lots of money. Hence, the need to use deception. It's the only way to be honest.


I know you are trolling, but what you are saying is that we need to have lies because the facts dont agree with you?
 
2012-10-23 12:01:08 PM  

Lonestar: Erix: HighZoolander: In before "But, but, but, climategate"

/would love to see the usual crowd of naysayers try to defend this

Well, obviously the suppression of contradictory evidence is so great that the only mean left to convey the information is through deception and data manipulation. The "scientists" working for the government may explain all of their methods for deciding what data to use, what not to use, and why, but the fact remains that they are only publishing reports that support the interpretation of anthropogenic climate change. The data that they discriminated against and declined to use, when looked at properly through the lens of free enterprise and capitalism, can clearly be presented in a way that arrives at a very different conclusion: climate is not changing, because if it was, it would cost lots of people lots of money. Hence, the need to use deception. It's the only way to be honest.

I know you are trolling, but what you are saying is that we need to have lies because the facts dont agree with you?


No, not at all. It's because the facts would cost me money, and lies are much cheaper.
 
2012-10-23 12:06:16 PM  

BiffDangler: It says Cato institute right on the front cover. Where's the beef?



thinkprogress.org

Original report on the left, "Addendum" on the right.
 
2012-10-23 12:11:05 PM  

BiffDangler: It says Cato institute right on the front cover. Where's the beef?


4.bp.blogspot.com

It clearly says The Asylum right on the back. What's the problem?

Seriously, if you need to use the same tactics as the makers of "Transmorphers" and "Snakes on a Train", you probably don't place very much value in honesty.
 
2012-10-23 12:18:35 PM  
Cato!
24.media.tumblr.com

/got nuthin'...
 
2012-10-23 12:24:40 PM  
photos.lasvegassun.com
They mad
 
2012-10-23 12:31:17 PM  
First: Patrick Michaels, director of Cato's Center for the Study of Science and the report's editor-in-chief, said the point was to showcase the arbitrary and selective science used by the federal authors.

Then: "You could make the argument that they left out more than half of the science when they produced their report," Michaels said in a podcast"

So, Cato was trying to show how the government wsa using selective science by using selective science?
 
2012-10-23 12:37:00 PM  
I thought we were already past the point of no return? What's the point in even talking about it anymore?
 
2012-10-23 12:43:31 PM  

m1ke: I thought we were already past the point of no return? What's the point in even talking about it anymore?


seriously.

We should just give in to the AGWers, grab some cold beers, strip off, debauch and bachanalia until the end of the world

who's with me?
 
2012-10-23 12:51:46 PM  

m1ke: I thought we were already past the point of no return? What's the point in even talking about it anymore?


Have you notice that in all of these climate related panics we've past the point of no return? Acid rain, passed the point of no return. Ozone layer, same again and now climate change. And those 6 words have been uttered by people with letters after their name, whilst looking at a TV camera.

Really it seems to boil down to two distinct possibilities:

1. The people involved with this are so terminally retarded they do not understand what "the point of no return" is or means... if this is the case why are we even listening to them.

2. The point of no return is a ways off, however... baby needs a new corvette and uttering that phrase worked the last few times so why not now? If this is the case why are we listening to people that skeezy?

So they're either retarded or skeezy... why are we listening to them?
 
2012-10-23 12:56:06 PM  

m1ke: I thought we were already past the point of no return? What's the point in even talking about it anymore?


elysianhunter.files.wordpress.com 

Totally agrees.
 
2012-10-23 12:57:15 PM  

tomWright: who's with me?


Well considering you can't build wave generators because it might upset the fishies, wind turbines might upset the birds and solar towers look hideous so nobody wants to be near one... and you apparently even think about nuclear fission or the devil appears behind you and not only bad touches your cat but rapes you with a brimstone dong... yeah... throw us a beer.

Both sides of the debate forgot there was a 3rd side. NIMBY's. They've truly won.
 
2012-10-23 01:00:14 PM  

Vaneshi: m1ke: I thought we were already past the point of no return? What's the point in even talking about it anymore?

Have you notice that in all of these climate related panics we've past the point of no return? Acid rain, passed the point of no return. Ozone layer, same again and now climate change. And those 6 words have been uttered by people with letters after their name, whilst looking at a TV camera.

Really it seems to boil down to two distinct possibilities:

1. The people involved with this are so terminally retarded they do not understand what "the point of no return" is or means... if this is the case why are we even listening to them.

2. The point of no return is a ways off, however... baby needs a new corvette and uttering that phrase worked the last few times so why not now? If this is the case why are we listening to people that skeezy?

So they're either retarded or skeezy... why are we listening to them?


You forgot the 3rd possibility:

3. You're just making shiat up and/or hallucinating.

Why am I responding to you?
 
2012-10-23 01:03:56 PM  

m1ke: I thought we were already past the point of no return? What's the point in even talking about it anymore?


The point of no return would be where feedbacks start occuring and we would not be able to stop the warming even if we stopped human emissions completely. The only known feedback process that could possibly exceed human carbon output involves methane clathrates, and there is no sign that they are starting to erupt.The temperature of the oceans would have to warm considerably more than they already have.

So no, whomever said we are past the point of no return was using hyperbole.

We may be totally farked due to social/political/economic enertia ensuring that we will see either an 10+ degree celsius rise in termperature or an economic collapse that makes The Great Depression seem like a tiny blip, but we havent reached TPONR.
 
2012-10-23 01:30:17 PM  

Vaneshi: m1ke: I thought we were already past the point of no return? What's the point in even talking about it anymore?

Have you notice that in all of these climate related panics we've past the point of no return? Acid rain, passed the point of no return. Ozone layer, same again and now climate change. And those 6 words have been uttered by people with letters after their name, whilst looking at a TV camera.

Really it seems to boil down to two distinct possibilities:

1. The people involved with this are so terminally retarded they do not understand what "the point of no return" is or means... if this is the case why are we even listening to them.

2. The point of no return is a ways off, however... baby needs a new corvette and uttering that phrase worked the last few times so why not now? If this is the case why are we listening to people that skeezy?

So they're either retarded or skeezy... why are we listening to them?


I don't remember that with either of the examples you give. Go ahead, post links. I'll wait.
 
2012-10-23 01:37:52 PM  

Vaneshi: m1ke: I thought we were already past the point of no return? What's the point in even talking about it anymore?

Have you notice that in all of these climate related panics we've past the point of no return? Acid rain, passed the point of no return. Ozone layer, same again and now climate change. And those 6 words have been uttered by people with letters after their name, whilst looking at a TV camera.

Really it seems to boil down to two distinct possibilities:

1. The people involved with this are so terminally retarded they do not understand what "the point of no return" is or means... if this is the case why are we even listening to them.

2. The point of no return is a ways off, however... baby needs a new corvette and uttering that phrase worked the last few times so why not now? If this is the case why are we listening to people that skeezy?

So they're either retarded or skeezy... why are we listening to them?


When did people say acid rain was past the point of no return?

In fact, isn't acid rain an excellent example of environmentalist policies, you know, ACTUALLY @#%$#@ING WORKING?

Please, link to these many, omnipresent scientists that were screaming acid rain was past the point of no return. I'll wait.
 
2012-10-23 02:34:24 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: m1ke: I thought we were already past the point of no return? What's the point in even talking about it anymore?

The point of no return would be where feedbacks start occuring and we would not be able to stop the warming even if we stopped human emissions completely. The only known feedback process that could possibly exceed human carbon output involves methane clathrates, and there is no sign that they are starting to erupt.The temperature of the oceans would have to warm considerably more than they already have.

So no, whomever said we are past the point of no return was using hyperbole.

We may be totally farked due to social/political/economic enertia ensuring that we will see either an 10+ degree celsius rise in termperature or an economic collapse that makes The Great Depression seem like a tiny blip, but we havent reached TPONR.


I agree with your point. As far as clathrates, we may already be on that route:

Vast methane 'plumes' seen in Arctic ocean as sea ice retreats
 
2012-10-23 02:37:57 PM  

Vaneshi: The point of no return is a ways off, however... baby needs a new corvette and uttering that phrase worked the last few times so why not now?


lolwut.

Clearly, scientists are driving Corvettes and living the high life. Oh wait, no.

Pretty much every scientist I know has a salary that caps out around that of a tenured professor (if they go that route). Hardly "big money" these days.

You are aware that grant money can't be used for personal gain, right? About the only things that one can get away with using without filling out Fun Happy Forms are basic office supplies like pens, paperclips, and the occasional notebook.
 
2012-10-23 02:38:48 PM  

Erix: HighZoolander: In before "But, but, but, climategate"

/would love to see the usual crowd of naysayers try to defend this

Well, obviously the suppression of contradictory evidence is so great that the only mean left to convey the information is through deception and data manipulation... Hence, the need to use deception. It's the only way to be honest.


BONUS: This argument also works for voter fraud.
 
2012-10-23 02:56:28 PM  
Isn't the Cato Institute the personal reacharound and shoeshine service provided to the Koch brothers?
 
2012-10-23 03:30:47 PM  
So did the hostile takeover of the Cato Institute go through?

Koch Brothers' Attempted Takeover Of Cato Could Be Part Of Bold Plan (UPDATE)
Posted: 03/22/2012 10:43 am Updated: 03/22/2012 8:10 pm

WASHINGTON -- Anyone wondering why the ultra-conservative billionaire industrialist Koch brothers are trying to seize control of the libertarian Cato Institute might want to look toward Wisconsin.

The Cato Institute is a Washington think tank with a long history of rigorous scholarship in the name of championing individual liberty. It's known for taking positions outside the conservative mainstream on issues like civil liberties, the war on drugs and U.S. militarism, regardless of the political consequences.

Charles and David Koch, by contrast, are all about winning. Their massive underwriting of bellicose Tea Party groups and super PACs appears to have three main goals: ousting President Barack Obama, busting unions, and reducing the tax and regulatory burden on companies like their own.

In Wisconsin, the two brothers have a 501(c)(3) educational organization that, just like Cato, is allowed to accept tax-deductible contributions. And just like Cato, it's only allowed to do so on condition that it not intervene in political campaigns.

Rather than nurture libertarian eggheads, however, the Kochs' group -- the Americans for Prosperity Foundation -- just spent $700,000 in March alone on ads quite clearly intended to help union-busting Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker survive a recall.

This political weaponizing of a charity is yet one more way that the owners of Koch Industries, one of the largest privately held companies in the world, are rewriting the rules of right-wing philanthropy in the post-Citizens United universe.

So far, the biggest political story of the 2012 campaign has been how moneyed interests are using super PACs and nonprofits to spend unlimited amounts of money in favor of individual candidates -- something that, prior to the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, was considered corrupting and illegal. Those super PACs and nonprofits engaged in political activity are exempt from paying taxes themselves, but their donors are not allowed to write off their contributions as charitable gifts.


Now the Kochs are taking things a step further. By operating such a group under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, they have actually arranged for the government to subsidize the funneling of unlimited political contributions into barrages of campaign advertising.

There's not supposed to be a tax deduction for political ads. But for every $1 million the Kochs or their friends chip in to a 501(c)(3), the federal government pays them back as much as $350,000 in tax deductions (were any of them actually paying taxes at the highest marginal rate).

"The thing that I think is different is that in the (c)(3) context, they're really taking money out of our pockets," said Donald Tobin, a law professor at Ohio State University and former tax lawyer at the Justice Department.

"It's making all the taxpayers who don't want to support a particular candidate, in fact, support them," said University of Miami law professor Frances Hill.

In theory, the Internal Revenue Service has "almost a zero tolerance" for political intervention by 501(c)(3)s -- for just those reasons, Tobin said. But part of what may have prompted the Kochs' latest moves is that the IRS, at least so far, shows only the faintest signs of willingness to confront other politically sensitive issues that critics consider equally egregious. Top of that list is the abuse of 501(c)(4) status -- intended for "social welfare" organizations -- by overtly political groups in order to keep their donors' identities secret from the public.

"I think that what's different here is a willingness to be very aggressive in terms of what's acceptable for your particular activity and a determination that you can get away with it because no one's going to enforce," Tobin said.

"I suspect they think that by the time the IRS gets around to taking action, the election will be over," said Lisa Graves, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy. "I think they're playing the odds in this dysfunctional regulatory environment."

TURNING CATO

Meanwhile, the Kochs' attempted hostile takeover of the Cato Institute, another 501(c)(3), has become a hot issue in Washington, particularly among conservatives.

Spokesmen for the billionaire brothers didn't respond to repeated requests for comment.

The Kochs funded Cato at its inception in the 1970s and -- in a highly unusual structure for a nonprofit corporation -- held half its shares. But their involvement for years was at arm's length.

Then, Barack Obama's inauguration and agenda apparently incited them to step up their political activism, turning them into the archetypal anti-Obama plutocrats, arming themselves for what they have called "the mother of all wars" in 2012.

article continues:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/22/koch-brothers-cato-institute - takeover-irs_n_1368045.html

And you thought Charlie Manson was dangerous? Ha!

I guess this fake Addendum report is the sort of thing that the Kochs regard as "more concrete deliverables".

You know who else published a "more concrete deliverable"? Yes, him. And them. And the other guys at the other extreme. This is a very dangerous conjuncture in the history of American freedom, real and imaginary. If you don't think so, somebody may have poured concrete in your ears while you were sleeping like a rock.
 
2012-10-23 04:06:55 PM  

Odd Bird: Cato!


/got nuthin'...


ah good to know that I'm not the only one that thinks "pink panther."
 
2012-10-23 04:09:58 PM  
Because government is the authority on science, not science itself. How dare you question the conclusions drawn by the government?!?! The Earth is clearly the center of the universe. The government said so.
 
2012-10-23 04:12:14 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: BiffDangler: It says Cato institute right on the front cover. Where's the beef?


[thinkprogress.org image 300x194]

Original report on the left, "Addendum" on the right.


Perhaps the people who can't tell the difference between the two are the same people who accidentally buy Android phones instead of Apple phones.
 
2012-10-23 04:13:39 PM  

m1ke: I thought we were already past the point of no return? What's the point in even talking about it anymore?


Much like the people who claim the world is ending on a certain date, Al Gore simply revises his date back a few months every time we arrive at it.

And then he rolls around in the hundreds of millions of dollars he has made off his scam.
 
2012-10-23 04:15:59 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: m1ke: I thought we were already past the point of no return? What's the point in even talking about it anymore?

The point of no return would be where feedbacks start occuring and we would not be able to stop the warming even if we stopped human emissions completely. The only known feedback process that could possibly exceed human carbon output involves methane clathrates, and there is no sign that they are starting to erupt.The temperature of the oceans would have to warm considerably more than they already have.

So no, whomever said we are past the point of no return was using hyperbole.

We may be totally farked due to social/political/economic enertia ensuring that we will see either an 10+ degree celsius rise in termperature or an economic collapse that makes The Great Depression seem like a tiny blip, but we havent reached TPONR.


So you're saying Al Gore and the IPCC lied to us?

Gee, who called that? Oh right, the scientists.
 
2012-10-23 04:18:05 PM  
Not the first time a denier organization fraudulently misrepresented themselves in order to lie... the OISM using fake National Academy of Sciences letterhead to send out a "when did you stopped beating your wife?" push poll accompanied by a fake article comes to mind.

You'll have heard of this in ACC threads, as deniers like to quote a petition that 32,000 scientists don't "believe" in ACC. It's true... 32,000 people with no knowledge of climatology have an opinion on climatology.

Mind you, that isn't so thrilling that it inspires a media storm and a "-gate" suffix... I wonder why? Maybe no one paid to make a media storm over it?
 
2012-10-23 04:21:16 PM  

heypete: Vaneshi: The point of no return is a ways off, however... baby needs a new corvette and uttering that phrase worked the last few times so why not now?

lolwut.

Clearly, scientists are driving Corvettes and living the high life. Oh wait, no.

Pretty much every scientist I know has a salary that caps out around that of a tenured professor (if they go that route). Hardly "big money" these days.

You are aware that grant money can't be used for personal gain, right? About the only things that one can get away with using without filling out Fun Happy Forms are basic office supplies like pens, paperclips, and the occasional notebook.


Professors at public colleges make around $125k-$200k a year for teaching 2-3 classes a week tops. Pretty sweet job.
 
2012-10-23 04:27:27 PM  
Michaels ultimately filed a 170-page response, he said. "In a 60-day comment period, there's no way you can actually do it. It's designed that way."

Wtf, you can't read a report and write 170 pages in TWO MONTHS?
 
2012-10-23 04:28:56 PM  
Bullseyed:

m1ke: I thought we were already past the point of no return? What's the point in even talking about it anymore?

Much like the people who claim the world is ending on a certain date, Al Gore simply revises his date back a few months every time we arrive at it.

And then he rolls around in the hundreds of millions of dollars he has made off his scam being a senior fellow at Google, a board member at Apple, a successful author, VPOTUS, and starting out wealthy and investing wisely while not making any profit off of his environmental work specifically so nitwits like you wouldn't have that argument..
 

Gorewin's law: If all you have is "Al Gore is fat," then you got nothing. Perhaps you should talk to these guys instead.
 
2012-10-23 04:43:50 PM  
Bullseyed:

heypete: Vaneshi: The point of no return is a ways off, however... baby needs a new corvette and uttering that phrase worked the last few times so why not now?

lolwut.

Clearly, scientists are driving Corvettes and living the high life. Oh wait, no.

Pretty much every scientist I know has a salary that caps out around that of a tenured professor (if they go that route). Hardly "big money" these days.

You are aware that grant money can't be used for personal gain, right? About the only things that one can get away with using without filling out Fun Happy Forms are basic office supplies like pens, paperclips, and the occasional notebook.

Professors at public colleges make around $125k-$200k a year for teaching 2-3 classes a week tops. Pretty sweet job.


Researchers at NOAA, NASA etc make government scale, as do state college researchers. I'm sure some professors at Harvard or ones who patent something lucrative make the money you claim, but the reality is that science is a farkload of work for very little remuneration. Three people in my own family can attest to that.

i46.tinypic.com

from the US OPM

The whole concept of "science bling" is hilarious, and marks you as someone who has no idea what they're talking about, but will YELL VERY LOUDLY about it anyway.
 
2012-10-23 04:46:10 PM  

timujin: First: Patrick Michaels, director of Cato's Center for the Study of Science and the report's editor-in-chief, said the point was to showcase the arbitrary and selective science used by the federal authors.

Then: "You could make the argument that they left out more than half of the science when they produced their report," Michaels said in a podcast"

So, Cato was trying to show how the government wsa using selective science by using selective science?


This isn't the first time Pat Michaels has used "selective science", either.
 
2012-10-23 04:52:10 PM  

Bullseyed: So you're saying Al Gore and the IPCC lied to us?



Neither of them said we were past TPONR. As I mentioned previously, TPONR implies a situation where even if we wanted to fix the problem, it has already grown out of our control. We are not at that point yet, and probably not for many years, unless the story Big_Thumb linked is more ominous than it first appears.

To use an analogy, we are driving towards a cliff. Pointing out that we are heading for a serious accident, like Gore and the IPCC did, is not the same as stating that we are inevitably doomed, It is a suggestion that we probably should seriously consider applying the breaks before we reach the point where even if we tried to stop, our inertia would carry us over the edge anyway.

I am a AGW fatalist. The evidence for it is overwhelming, but I do not believe that we as a species will take the proper steps in time, for reasons outlined in this article: Three Numbers
 
2012-10-23 05:00:06 PM  

Bullseyed: heypete: Vaneshi: The point of no return is a ways off, however... baby needs a new corvette and uttering that phrase worked the last few times so why not now?

lolwut.

Clearly, scientists are driving Corvettes and living the high life. Oh wait, no.

Pretty much every scientist I know has a salary that caps out around that of a tenured professor (if they go that route). Hardly "big money" these days.

You are aware that grant money can't be used for personal gain, right? About the only things that one can get away with using without filling out Fun Happy Forms are basic office supplies like pens, paperclips, and the occasional notebook.

Professors at public colleges make around $125k-$200k a year for teaching 2-3 classes a week tops. Pretty sweet job.


You almost make it sound like professors don't have to also create and grade exams, grade papers, sit on numerous university committees, run their labs, supervise student research, write grant applications and publish papers on their research, etc.

Nah, they're not working 60-70 hours a week, they're just hanging out at the beach and raking in phat government loot for nothing.
 
2012-10-23 05:03:53 PM  

Bullseyed: Professors at public colleges make around $125k-$200k a year for teaching 2-3 classes a week tops. Pretty sweet job.


You mean all they have to do to pull in that sweet deal is teach 2-3 classes a week (which meet 2-3 times each), do their research, publish, run a lab, find and secure grant money, and have held that job for 10 or 15 years? Wow! That's a steal!
 
2012-10-23 05:04:39 PM  

HighZoolander: You almost make it sound like professors don't have to also create and grade exams, grade papers, sit on numerous university committees, run their labs, supervise student research, write grant applications and publish papers on their research, etc.

Nah, they're not working 60-70 hours a week, they're just hanging out at the beach and raking in phat government loot for nothing.


Um.. yeah, what you said.
 
2012-10-23 05:16:10 PM  
I'm convinced of the following things about global warming:

1. It's real.
2. It's man made.
3. Nobody really gives a shiat about it.
4. Nor do they need to.

When I say nobody gives a shiat about it, I mean that nobody gives enough of a shiat about it to fix the problem. It is beyond politically impossible to force the hardship (via higher energy prices, lower economic growth, a lower standard of living, etc.) required to stop global warming (not just slow the rate of the increase of growth or something), especially considering hundreds of different governments would have to agree to such.

Now, when I say they don't need to, we don't. Sure, if we don't stop global warming, a bunch of species that can only live in a narrow climate band will go extinct. Sure, a bunch of subsistance farmers in Africa will starve to death. But your average first world citizen won't notice much, beyond an extended bikini season. Heck, there are even some favorable aspects-farmers in Canada and the northern United States will experience a longer growing season and higher crop yields, shipping passages in the artic will be opened up for cargo ships, etc.
 
2012-10-23 05:23:52 PM  

Geotpf: I'm convinced of the following things about global warming:

1. It's real.
2. It's man made.
3. Nobody really gives a shiat about it.
4. Nor do they need to.

When I say nobody gives a shiat about it, I mean that nobody gives enough of a shiat about it to fix the problem. It is beyond politically impossible to force the hardship (via higher energy prices, lower economic growth, a lower standard of living, etc.) required to stop global warming (not just slow the rate of the increase of growth or something), especially considering hundreds of different governments would have to agree to such.

Now, when I say they don't need to, we don't. Sure, if we don't stop global warming, a bunch of species that can only live in a narrow climate band will go extinct. Sure, a bunch of subsistance farmers in Africa will starve to death. But your average first world citizen won't notice much, beyond an extended bikini season. Heck, there are even some favorable aspects-farmers in Canada and the northern United States will experience a longer growing season and higher crop yields, shipping passages in the artic will be opened up for cargo ships, etc.


You were doing so well.. Not sure if you're trolling with the last part, but that's not all it would mean. Warming wouldn't just mean that everywhere gets a little warmer. It would result in a major shifts in climate patterns, with different areas reacting in totally different and largely unpredictable ways. All of our infrastructure is built around where the resources (water, coasts, precipitation, etc.) are right now. If they move, relocating our cities and farms wouldn't exactly be cheap or easy. And sure, most species would be able to follow shifting climatic belts, in a normal situation. But instead, everything lives in a fragmented world, with farmland, cities, highways, and suburbs breaking up their habitat and preventing easy migration.

It's odd that you'd believe the scientists when they tell you that it's happening and it's man-made, but completely ignore them when they tell you what the results would be.
 
2012-10-23 05:31:27 PM  

Geotpf: It is beyond politically impossible to force the hardship (via higher energy prices, lower economic growth, a lower standard of living, etc.) required to stop global warming (not just slow the rate of the increase of growth or something), especially considering hundreds of different governments would have to agree to such.


You're right, "stopping global warming" is not on the table, policy-wise. (Or rather, stopping it any time this century.) Slowing it down, and reducing the total eventual warming, is the goal.



I think you're deluding yourself as to how big a change we're really talking about. We could easily see a 5 degrees C change over North America by the end of the century under a high emissions scenario. That would roughly, for example, give Washington DC the climate of Dallas in under a century. Globally, under a 2x or 3x CO2 scenario, we could see temperature changes as large as those between the last ice age and today. People will notice that. Ecosystems will notice that, and not just a bunch of "narrow range" species that nobody cares about, either. And developed nations will certainty be affected by geopolitical and economic instability and social unrest in harder-impacted nations. Better hope climate change doesn't set us up for the next global pandemic from a developing country, either.
 
2012-10-23 05:37:03 PM  

Erix: Geotpf: I'm convinced of the following things about global warming:

1. It's real.
2. It's man made.
3. Nobody really gives a shiat about it.
4. Nor do they need to.

When I say nobody gives a shiat about it, I mean that nobody gives enough of a shiat about it to fix the problem. It is beyond politically impossible to force the hardship (via higher energy prices, lower economic growth, a lower standard of living, etc.) required to stop global warming (not just slow the rate of the increase of growth or something), especially considering hundreds of different governments would have to agree to such.

Now, when I say they don't need to, we don't. Sure, if we don't stop global warming, a bunch of species that can only live in a narrow climate band will go extinct. Sure, a bunch of subsistance farmers in Africa will starve to death. But your average first world citizen won't notice much, beyond an extended bikini season. Heck, there are even some favorable aspects-farmers in Canada and the northern United States will experience a longer growing season and higher crop yields, shipping passages in the artic will be opened up for cargo ships, etc.

You were doing so well.. Not sure if you're trolling with the last part, but that's not all it would mean. Warming wouldn't just mean that everywhere gets a little warmer. It would result in a major shifts in climate patterns, with different areas reacting in totally different and largely unpredictable ways. All of our infrastructure is built around where the resources (water, coasts, precipitation, etc.) are right now. If they move, relocating our cities and farms wouldn't exactly be cheap or easy. And sure, most species would be able to follow shifting climatic belts, in a normal situation. But instead, everything lives in a fragmented world, with farmland, cities, highways, and suburbs breaking up their habitat and preventing easy migration.

It's odd that you'd believe the scientists when they tell you that it's h ...


Except in the cases of beach front property (which might fall into the sea-but is mostly owned by zillionares anyways), such is easily mitagated in a first world nation such as America. Farmers will plant different crops as the climate changes. Modern cities and suburbs aren't dependant on a certain climate. If tempertures go up, or down, or it rains more, or whatever, in any given modern city, the net effect is meh.
 
2012-10-23 05:46:43 PM  

Ambitwistor: Geotpf: It is beyond politically impossible to force the hardship (via higher energy prices, lower economic growth, a lower standard of living, etc.) required to stop global warming (not just slow the rate of the increase of growth or something), especially considering hundreds of different governments would have to agree to such.

You're right, "stopping global warming" is not on the table, policy-wise. (Or rather, stopping it any time this century.) Slowing it down, and reducing the total eventual warming, is the goal.



I think you're deluding yourself as to how big a change we're really talking about. We could easily see a 5 degrees C change over North America by the end of the century under a high emissions scenario. That would roughly, for example, give Washington DC the climate of Dallas in under a century. Globally, under a 2x or 3x CO2 scenario, we could see temperature changes as large as those between the last ice age and today. People will notice that. Ecosystems will notice that, and not just a bunch of "narrow range" species that nobody cares about, either. And developed nations will certainty be affected by geopolitical and economic instability and social unrest in harder-impacted nations. Better hope climate change doesn't set us up for the next global pandemic from a developing country, either.


Ok, let's ignore the effects for now and focus on the fact that there's no practical way to solve the problem in the first place. If the Democratic candidates try to do what would actually be needed to fix the problem (doubling or tripling the price of gasoline via higher taxes, say), they would all be replaced by Republicans-or primaried out via other Democrats-plus you'd have to get India and China and Russia and all of Europe and Australia and Japan and South Korea and everybody else to do the same.

Not going to happen.
 
Displayed 50 of 74 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report