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 Register)   Swedish scientists claim ice age is coming, only CO2 can save us. Norway that's happening, man. Norway   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 151
    More: Unlikely, carbon dioxide, Swedish, ice ages, Little Ice Age, warm period, University of Gothenburg, atmospheric carbon dioxide, quiet period  
•       •       •

2863 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Nov 2012 at 7:34 PM (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
 
2012-11-11 07:48:42 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy:

>>>>>That's perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable is denying the existence of climate change because you disagree with some of the proposed solutions.

Thank you for recognizing the validity of my suspicions. You're second sentence, however, seems to be jumping to a conclusion. I do NOT deny the existence of climate change because I disagree with some of the proposed solution. First, it is quite possible, even probable, that climate change (NOT necessarily warming - I note that you have suddenly changed the emphasis from warming to change!) is occurring. It is NOT clear to me that the bulk of it, or indeed any of it is caused by man-made (industrial) activities. And if it is, it is not clear how much of that is being offset by natural processes. It is also unclear to me how any of the proposed solutions would have any actual effect - and what the ecological unintended consequences of those solutions might be..

On this last, in other words, Climate Change proponents are demanding the inclusion of massive "quick fixes" into a gigantic, relatively dimly understood, fairly delicate with apparent "butterfly effect" tipping points, climate system. The sheer arrogance of that is somewhat breathtaking.

(Which is why my personal preferences for "saving" the system tend towards quickly reversible solutions (such as the solar mirror option). If things go pear shaped you turn the damn thing off.)



First, I'm not always consistent in calling this "climate change" vs. "global warming." "Anthropogenic climate change" would be most accurate, although both can be correct.

With regard to the cause of any change, it's true that we can't isolate any single factor with 100% certainty. However, when overall warming coincides with a 40% increase in an atmospheric component with known greenhouse properties, while at the same time showing an increasing deviation from a preexisting correlation with solar output, the level of suspicion on theoretical grounds alone is high enough to (IMHO) make human activity the "most likely" cause given our present level of knowledge, and all of the proposed alternative explanations (from cosmic rays to falsified data) have fallen short of convincing me otherwise.

As for any natural offsetting factors, why haven't they worked so far? Fact is, they've been working; they're just overtaxed (by the rate of CO2 increase) and overrated. (My initial complaint about TFA was that it proposed a CO2 sink by extrapolating based on Norway's expanding peatlands, despite ample data that peatlands worldwide are in fact disappearing.)

Finally, worrying about the possible side effects of possible "quick fixes" while ignoring the possible side effects of the much more massive "quick fix" of anthropogenic CO2 itself, including the risks associated with reaching an atmospheric "tipping point" to a new (and possibly quite unfavorable) climatic mean, isn't arrogant, but it is inconsistent. I agree with you about reversible solutions for this very reason.


>>>>>There are any number of different factors that have affected Earth's climate throughout its history. To suggest that conditions, say, 2 billion years ago are by necessity relevant today is to ignore the vast differences in atmospheric composition, solar insolation, the distribution of continents and oceans, etc., that practically make it a comparison between two different planets. Unless you can specifically identify past events when CO2 levels changed like they are now, the full temperature record just isn't particularly relevant.

You have a good point. I retire that argument, at least as pertains to ancient periods. I still maintain that there is a possible disconnect as regards.actual/imputed temperature readings. Earth's climate is a vast, slow system. Can we extrapolate from only several thousand data points of only several hundred years?


There certainly is some error in the temperature record, and any extrapolations have to take into account, as you say, a number of poorly understood interactions and feedback mechanisms. On the other hand, the current changes are occurring on a scale of decades, which can't be resolved even back to the onset of the present glacial/interglacial cycle. Even if we could accurately predict the long-term climatic drivers and their effects, the more powerful short-term effects of CO2 would make those forecasts all but meaningless.

As flawed and as noisy as it is, the short-term data is really all we have. It's no surprise that various studies have reached a wide range of conclusions, sometimes contradicting each other.


>>>>>>Finally, once again, you seem to assume that any possible corrective action must involve economic collapse and "Brown People" starving. Meanwhile, just upthread, you contradict yourself by describing opponents to an armada of space mirrors to cool Earth as Luddites.

I don't see the contradiction. And most of the proposals I've heard of involve massive capping of industrial and even in some cases agricultural production, and mandated (ie: at the point of a gun) replacement of lower-cost "fossil" (see Thomas Gold) fuels with higher cost alternatives. Almost by definition, the majority of "solutions" I'm aware of mean higher costs for the consumer.

For example, one "solution" I've heard seriously proposed is an additional $5.00 per gallon tax on gasoline. This would discourage "frivolous" use of cars and, yes, would certainly contribute to a lowering of carbon dioxide levels. Possibly only a minute lowering, but a lowering nonetheless. But what about the "unintended" consequences of a $5.00 per gallon gas tax? Well, for one thing, the price of virtually every single consumer good, including food, would increase (so as to cover the increased freight cost of hauling stuff from point A to point B). Who would this hurt most? In this country, poor people. In the world economy, Brown People, who are a disproportionate percentage of the less prosperous nations. This consequence is so blindingly obvious to me, and to anyone I talk to in conversation. This is why I put the word "unintended" in quotes. My fear is that NO ONE could be stupid enough to not realize this; which means that their proposal of a $5.00 gas tax must deliberately target the poor and therefore Brown People.



These "solutions" are proposed by politicians, not climatologists, and just prove that there are ignorami on both sides of the discussion (including any climatologists who might actually be making economic proposals).


>>>>>So, is climate change real or not, and should we do anything about it or not? And would you be so skeptical of climate change if someone other than a Democratic politician had sounded the popular alarm?

Climate change is undoubtedly real. And has been for 4 billion years. I believe our activities should center around, first, adjusting to it, and second creating technological fixes that can be turned off should unintended consequences to those fixes arise. And, yes, being an independent thinker and not a Republican, I would look at suspicion no matter WHO was trying to stampede the world into this crap.



You seem to be confusing the proposed solutions to climate change with climate change itself. How is Al Gore stampeding the atmosphere into containing more CO2?

Yes, some of the fixes acknowledge not only that CO2 is a leading cause of climate change, but that the fossil fuels responsible for the CO2 in the first place are finite resources, and that sooner or later we're going to have to make do with less anyway. I guess you could call it social engineering, but you could also call it inevitable. Either way, there are other solutions which you would support, so why focus on those which you don't?
 
2012-11-11 07:53:35 PM
OC homeless guy, favorited as an anti fluoridation loon. Why stop at one conspiracy theory?
 
2012-11-11 09:31:26 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy:

................previous stuff

>>>>>With regard to the cause of any change, it's true that we can't isolate any single factor with 100% certainty. However, when overall warming coincides with a 40% increase in an atmospheric component with known greenhouse properties, while at the same time showing an increasing deviation from a preexisting correlation with solar output, the level of suspicion on theoretical grounds alone is high enough to (IMHO) make human activity the "most likely" cause given our present level of knowledge, and all of the proposed alternative explanations (from cosmic rays to falsified data) have fallen short of convincing me otherwise

As many have pointed out, correlation does not equal causation..

>>>>As for any natural offsetting factors, why haven't they worked so far? Fact is, they've been working; they're just overtaxed (by the rate of CO2 increase) and overrated. (My initial complaint about TFA was that it proposed a CO2 sink by extrapolating based on Norway's expanding peatlands, despite ample data that peatlands worldwide are in fact disappearing.)

I agree, they may be already working. As to whether it is enough, that would depend on what is almost a a chicken/egg situation which depends on whether we are entering a glacial period or the reverse. I see where the answer to this issue would confound current theory - as well as the reverse. It is almost Heisenbergian. The point is that we don't know.

Interestingly, the alarm about climate change was first raised in the 70s, with concern about a new ice age. This quickly turned a 180 and became Global Heat Death. Now, suddenly, some scientists are again talking Ice Age.

We don't know what we don't know. The number of possible factors involving Earth climate are immense. Off the top of my head, in no particular order:
- anthropogenic effects,
- naturally reinforcing positive and negative feedback weather cycles,
- peat bog growth,
- earthquakes that change the coarses of rivers,
- volcanoes that emit greenhouse gases and sun-blocking clouds
- the changing temperature of the sun, sunspots, solar flares,
- the position of the solar system in it's orbit around the galaxy (are we traveling through a dust cloud?)
- probably dozens or hundreds of others.

A large number of these are cyclic in nature, and the cycle frequencies vary wildly. Remember the old "Biorhythm" fad in the 70s? Most used 3 cycles: Physical (23 days), Emotional (28 days), and Intellectual (33 days). Some, today, use seven, adding Spiritual (53 days), Awareness (48 days), Aesthetic (43 days), and Intuition (38 days). When the cycles cross weird things supposedly happen.

An example more firmly grounded in reality would be the "rogue wave" effect, where a 200 foot wave, the additive effect of many different waves of different cycles coalescing, suddenly appears in the open ocean.

How the hell can we claim any kind of certainty when we don't even know all the causes of climate change, much less how they work?

>>>>Finally, worrying about the possible side effects of possible "quick fixes" while ignoring the possible side effects of the much more massive "quick fix" of anthropogenic CO2 itself, including the risks associated with reaching an atmospheric "tipping point" to a new (and possibly quite unfavorable) climatic mean, isn't arrogant, but it is inconsistent. I agree with you about reversible solutions for this very reason.

The possible side effects of most politically-generated "quick fixes" are social and economic disruption, drastically lowered living standards, mass starvation of (mostly) Brown People, and potentially totalitarian control measures.

The possible side effects of most scientifically-generated "quick fixes" have the potential for definite and disastrous pear-shaped results. Release of vast amounts of chemicals into the atmosphere and/or the ocean? Really? Do we know with certainty what ALL consequences of that would be? We do not.

The possible side effects, and the timing, of increasing levels of carbon dioxide are unknown in their entirety. See Conclusion

.............more stuff

>>>>>There certainly is some error in the temperature record, and any extrapolations have to take into account, as you say, a number of poorly understood interactions and feedback mechanisms. On the other hand, the current changes are occurring on a scale of decades, which can't be resolved even back to the onset of the present glacial/interglacial cycle. Even if we could accurately predict the long-term climatic drivers and their effects, the more powerful short-term effects of CO2 would make those forecasts all but meaningless.

>>>As flawed and as noisy as it is, the short-term data is really all we have. It's no surprise that various studies have reached a wide range of conclusions, sometimes contradicting each other.

I basically agree.

.....stuff about solutions

>>>>These "solutions" are proposed by politicians, not climatologists, and just prove that there are ignorami on both sides of the discussion (including any climatologists who might actually be making economic proposals).

THERE'S the PR problem! Climatologists have let the politicians some of those politicians being Climatologists) define the problem and the solutions.

 
2012-11-11 09:36:49 PM

Baryogenesis: RedVentrue: Ha! I've been there. AnyAGW solution I've seen involves forcing the world to stop burning things. The world economy is entirely dependant on burning things. Alternative energy sources are nowhere near what is needed to meet demand, and billions of people will starve.

Your post is ridiculously hyperbolic. No one is calling for the total elimination of all fossil fuels overnight (scaling down to zero a few decades from now as it is replaced with alternatives is very different). Energy efficiency is the simplest approach to help reduce CO2 emissions while alternative energy is just a matter of political will and funding.

We already have the technology we need to take the world off the path toward dramatic climate change.

and you're forgetting the costs of doing nothing which could also have drastic consequences for farming, water supplies and the spread of disease.

Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action - reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change - can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.


How can you estimate the cost of an unknown?
 
2012-11-11 10:29:33 PM

RedVentrue: Baryogenesis: RedVentrue: Ha! I've been there. AnyAGW solution I've seen involves forcing the world to stop burning things. The world economy is entirely dependant on burning things. Alternative energy sources are nowhere near what is needed to meet demand, and billions of people will starve.

Your post is ridiculously hyperbolic. No one is calling for the total elimination of all fossil fuels overnight (scaling down to zero a few decades from now as it is replaced with alternatives is very different). Energy efficiency is the simplest approach to help reduce CO2 emissions while alternative energy is just a matter of political will and funding.

We already have the technology we need to take the world off the path toward dramatic climate change.

and you're forgetting the costs of doing nothing which could also have drastic consequences for farming, water supplies and the spread of disease.

Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action - reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change - can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.

How can you estimate the cost of an unknown?


It's not an unknown. There are a range of possibilities and costs depending on the severity of the changes. You could try reading the report or at least the summary to get an idea of their methods to find out.

Stern Review
 
2012-11-11 10:40:01 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy:

................previous stuff

>>>>>With regard to the cause of any change, it's true that we can't isolate any single factor with 100% certainty. However, when overall warming coincides with a 40% increase in an atmospheric component with known greenhouse properties, while at the same time showing an increasing deviation from a preexisting correlation with solar output, the level of suspicion on theoretical grounds alone is high enough to (IMHO) make human activity the "most likely" cause given our present level of knowledge, and all of the proposed alternative explanations (from cosmic rays to falsified data) have fallen short of convincing me otherwise

As many have pointed out, correlation does not equal causation..



I've pointed that out myself. I've also pointed out that if you have a number of possible contributing factors, and only one of them currently shows a strong correlation, then it's not unreasonable to consider the one correlated factor the most likely #1 contributor until proven otherwise.


>>>>As for any natural offsetting factors, why haven't they worked so far? Fact is, they've been working; they're just overtaxed (by the rate of CO2 increase) and overrated. (My initial complaint about TFA was that it proposed a CO2 sink by extrapolating based on Norway's expanding peatlands, despite ample data that peatlands worldwide are in fact disappearing.)

I agree, they may be already working. As to whether it is enough, that would depend on what is almost a a chicken/egg situation which depends on whether we are entering a glacial period or the reverse. I see where the answer to this issue would confound current theory - as well as the reverse. It is almost Heisenbergian. The point is that we don't know.

Interestingly, the alarm about climate change was first raised in the 70s, with concern about a new ice age. This quickly turned a 180 and became Global Heat Death. Now, suddenly, some scientists are again talking Ice Age.



Not true. Even in the 1970s, far more published articles were concerned about imminent warming than about returning glaciation in a couple of millennia:

www.skepticalscience.com


We don't know what we don't know. The number of possible factors involving Earth climate are immense. Off the top of my head, in no particular order:
- anthropogenic effects,
- naturally reinforcing positive and negative feedback weat ...



Sure, there are any number of factors which may have some negligible effect on temperature, and it's also true that at some point several of these factors might coincide to produce a greater-than-expected effect. However, regarding those factors for which we have actual data, the numbers just don't add up, and none of these additional factors addresses the observed correlation between the theoretical greenhouse effect of increased CO2 and the observed temperature data.


The possible side effects of most politically-generated "quick fixes" are social and economic disruption, drastically lowered living standards, mass starvation of (mostly) Brown People, and potentially totalitarian control measures.

The possible side effects of most scientifically-generated "quick fixes" have the potential for definite and disastrous pear-shaped results. Release of vast amounts of chemicals into the atmosphere and/or the ocean? Really? Do we know with certainty what ALL consequences of that would be? We do not.



So the answer is to do nothing? And again, you fret over the effects of releasing chemicals into the environment to combat warming, but you downplay the effects of the vast release of the specific chemical that brought on the warming in the first place.


The possible side effects, and the timing, of increasing levels of carbon dioxide are unknown in their entirety. See Conclusion


From your link:

Conclusion

If present trends continue, Earth's climate will be very different 100 years from now. Nearly all of the world's scientists agree on this. The only disagreement is about the amount and the rate of change.


In other words, climatologists are in agreement about the overall effects; only the magnitude and speed of the change are in question.
 
2012-11-12 01:02:51 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: common sense is an oxymoron: Just Another OC Homeless Guy:

................previous stuff

>>>>>With regard to the cause of any change, it's true that we can't isolate any single factor with 100% certainty. However, when overall warming coincides with a 40% increase in an atmospheric component with known greenhouse properties, while at the same time showing an increasing deviation from a preexisting correlation with solar output, the level of suspicion on theoretical grounds alone is high enough to (IMHO) make human activity the "most likely" cause given our present level of knowledge, and all of the proposed alternative explanations (from cosmic rays to falsified data) have fallen short of convincing me otherwise

As many have pointed out, correlation does not equal causation..


I've pointed that out myself. I've also pointed out that if you have a number of possible contributing factors, and only one of them currently shows a strong correlation, then it's not unreasonable to consider the one correlated factor the most likely #1 contributor until proven otherwise.


>>>>As for any natural offsetting factors, why haven't they worked so far? Fact is, they've been working; they're just overtaxed (by the rate of CO2 increase) and overrated. (My initial complaint about TFA was that it proposed a CO2 sink by extrapolating based on Norway's expanding peatlands, despite ample data that peatlands worldwide are in fact disappearing.)

I agree, they may be already working. As to whether it is enough, that would depend on what is almost a a chicken/egg situation which depends on whether we are entering a glacial period or the reverse. I see where the answer to this issue would confound current theory - as well as the reverse. It is almost Heisenbergian. The point is that we don't know.

Interestingly, the alarm about climate change was first raised in the 70s, with concern about a new ice age. This quickly turned a 180 ...


Mind giving the source for that graph?
 
2012-11-12 01:18:14 AM
Put your mouse cursor over the graph.
 
2012-11-12 01:42:19 AM

RedVentrue: AGW seems to be, and scientific conclusions ARE decided by popular vote, among scientists, and science gets VERY political. When money is involved, scientific agnostisism can go right out the window. The AGW arguement is very politically motivated. AGW belongs in the politics tab, not the geek tab.


The science is the science. That it has been politicized is beside the point. And you are quite wrong when you say scientists decide by popular vote. Phlogiston was very popular. So was geocentrism. They were both factually incorrect, and that was the important point. Science is not a popularity contest. It is a contest of logic, fact, and mathematics, none of which are subject to popularity. The social aspect of science, where popularity plays a very large role, is involved in what the accepted questions are, which disciplines are deemed important and which not, who gets political support, etc. Those are all very important and have a critical role, but it does not have bearing on the accuracy and validity of the underlying science except to the extent that it can interfere with the availability of resources (time, money, equipment, manpower, etc.) needed to do that science.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: I'm so sorry. You want to prove a point? You seem to be unaware that it is up to YOU to prove it to me. Not with handwaves ("look at google"), not with links to obviously propaganda websites (Union of Concerned Scientists, etc.) but with links to actual purportedly objective sites. In the context of GCC this happens all too rarely. THAT, in itself, is deeply suspicious.


Hey wonder-boy, try Googling Jon Snow and Fark, and see just how many threads here on Fark have involved extensive explanations of GCC from just that one poster. And now you want to have all that rehashed just because your ignorant ass got up on a soapbox and started blathering bullshiat? Sorry, you're not worth the time. You're just one more deluded denialist grasping at straws.

I'm not bothering not because I can't, but because it's just the same tired old bullshiat. But frankly as it is absurdly easy to find accurate data if you can bother yourself to open your eyes and pull your fingers out of your ears, I'll give you one freebie. Start Here.

But I'm willing to bet you're going to say something like, "Oh Noes! That's a partisan site! They have an axe to grind or something to prove! It must all be lies!" in order to dismiss it all without reading the relevant data. Never mind of course that's a question-begging, partisan position. Because everyone knows all data in favor of GCC is partisan because only partisans believe in GCC which means that all data in favor of GCC is partisan because... and so on.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Straw Man much? Also deeply suspicious. You see, you people are constantly falling back on the "logic" used by con artists! Do you really wonder that intelligent people take your message with a large grain of salt?

But, in answer to your questions, no, I am not a creationist, and feel quite comfortable with thermodynamics, organic chemistry and geology.


Climatology uses exactly the same basic philosophical premises and methodological assumptions as all those other sciences I mentioned. The methods of determining accuracy and validity, and accepting conclusions thereby, also use exactly the same reasoning. Yet you accept without question all the results of the other sciences I named, and you question climatology, for what appear to be exclusively partisan political reasons.

Intelligent people understand that. Which is why intelligent people are able to critically evaluate GCC and understand why it's conclusions hold up to reasonable scrutiny, and denialist derping does not.

So incidentally, not only is it not a straw man to make the argument I made, it also demonstrates quite handily what a partisan hypocrite you are.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: It's the slick performance put on by Neils Bohr that I have trouble with. That was the starting point of the decline of classical physics (communicable to non-physics people) and the rise of quantum physics (extremely difficult to explain to non-physics people). This is curious, since every other science prior to quantum physics was intelligible to or at least explainable to a person of average intelligence. It's almost as if the quantum revolution - accepted also or particularly by quantum physicists - became the new "dogma" (accepted on faith, since no rational explanation of it was possible). .Quantum physicists accept it for one reason, and one reason only: it works. It explains everything (except gravity, which is the reason another complex and almost incomprehensible edifice - string theory - was erected "on top" of quantum theory).

Note, however, that I could make up a theory that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does everything, and explains everything. In terms ONLY of the pragmatic point of explaining everything, that would be just as valid as quantum theory.


Complete and utter bullshiat. Most of science and engineering is not comprehensible to the lay person except in the most vague and general sense. Or can you tell me how to calculate an orbital insertion for a probe heading from Earth to Jupiter? Can you tell me how to distinguish between the cis- and trans- isomers of a benzene derivative organic molecule by experimental techniques? How about giving me a full breakdown of the regions and functions of the human brain down to the neuron level? Can you derive Godel's incompleteness theorem?

There's a reason most human subjects are worked on by experts who have had extensive in-depth training. Because only the experts who have had that training know enough to be able to understand the details and nuances of their areas of specialty beyond the most gross and superficial levels. We are long, long past the days of the Renaissance men who could be expected reasonably to be well-versed in every discipline.

You are making an argument from personal incredulity. That is **always** a fallacious argument because the truth or falsity of a point is not in any way affected by your ability or inability to understand it.

The reason we use quantum theory (and incidentally climatology) is because it gets results. The theories have predictive value that has been validated by literally tens of thousands of experiments, in quantum physics enough for six-sigma statistical certainty for every result. I dare you to go look up how much work it takes to reach that level of certainty.

So, you don't like it, you don't understand it, it makes you uneasy because it violates your "common sense"? Too farking bad for you. Against that mountain of empirical evidence, your small-minded ignorant incredulity has less value than a gnat's fart in the wind.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: When a "science" is not explainable to the average intelligent man on the street, all that is really left is the common sense ability to "cull the wheat from the chaff" so to speak. Lots of people have it, and use it, every day. That does NOT make it a fallacy.


Again, this is bullshiat. Many people believe they have such an ability. In fact, they do not. Humans are highly biased towards that which confirms their existing belief, and are nowhere near as good at detecting falsehoods as they believe they are. The best human lie detectors, highly trained, reach at best about a 65% certainty. Most people are no better than a coin flip, and that's with neutral information that they have no existing biases towards either way. Falsehoods that agree with what they already believe will be very likely accepted, and truths that disagree will be disbelieved. Go look at birthers and truthers if you want a clear-cut real world example.

In fact, a very large part of the training process of any scientist or academic is drilling in to them that error is inevitable, and that it's good because it gives you the chance to improve your knowledge, and that every criticism or refutation must be carefully considered on it's merits, not on whether you already agree or disagree with it, let alone understand it. A lesson you in particular appear desperately to need to learn.

So sorry to break this shocking news to you, but your incredulity is very much a fallacy, on every possible level.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Generalize much? My point has always been that it is NOT all members of the entire discipline. There are many (though perhaps a minority) climatologists who are quite skeptical about the whole GW GCC issue. Once again, you make use of the "logic" of a con man.


Just Another OC Homeless Guy: You keep saying that, but I notice that you pre-define the validated info by stating it has been validated "in virtually all the scientific literature worth the name." In other words, literature that does NOT validate is by definition not scientific and worthless. I believe that was the same argument used by Church officials when the threatened to burn Galileo at the stake for his heretical views.


When 97% of the world's climate scientists, including all the leading experts agree on a topic, and the remaining fraction publish poor quality material rife with errors and biases that is easily and routinely refuted, that does not mean that the two positions have equal merit. It does not mean that lay people should feel justified in asserting that the consensus viewpoint is wrong. It just means that there are a few people who are either wrong or are shilling for someone.

That you insist on projecting the lies and bullshiat of those fringe elements and partisan shills onto the enormous majority group who's work has been independently confirmed by skeptics, is simpy indicative of your own intellectual bankruptcy and blindness to your own biases.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: YOU are trying to prove the positive. The ball's in your court. To do otherwise would not be scientific on your part.


No, actually, when the vast majority of the experts on a subject assert a conclusion based on a mountain of empirical evidence and decades of research and analysis, the onus is on the naysayer to do the work necessary to prove that the nay position they espouse offers a better explanation for the observed data and offers better predictive value in terms of understanding and forecasting future events than the existing theory. The fact that you don't understand that point already further indicates to me you have no training whatsoever in the sciences.

It's not enough to squint your eyes shut, stick your fingers in your ears and shout "NO!" over and over again at the top of your lungs like you are currently doing. You actually have to prove that your position is better-supported by evidence and logic.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: No, I have not. And using common sense and a basic knowledge of human psychology to "read" the telltales of a spokesperson and determine the likelihood that that spokesperson is trying to hustle you is NOT the same thing as saying "I don't like that person". In fact, con artists are generally very likeable people.I know; I've met quite a few.


First, you are nowhere near as good at that as you think you are, and you are deeply affected by your existing biases, as I have already pointed out. You are going to be predisposed to "read telltales" that push you towards accepting what you already believe and rejecting what you already disbelieve, just like every other human alive. That why scientific research tries as much as possible to make the opinions of the researcher either completely irrelevant (as in the natural sciences and quantitative social sciences) or completely obvious and fully disclosed (as in the qualitative social sciences), because anything else distorts the validity and accuracy of the research.

And second, none of that matters. Who the spokesperson is has absolutely no bearing on the truth of falsity of a statement. That's why an ad hominem is a fallacy in the first place. It doesn't matter if it's Mother Theresa saying 2+2=5 or Hitler saying 2+2=4; the former statement is still false, and the latter statement is still true. So you don't like Al Gore? I do not give even the slightest of shiats. It has no bearing whatsoever on the scientific validity of GCC. Neither would loving Al Gore to the point of wanting to have his babies, if that is how you were so inclined. It does not now matter, never has mattered, and never will matter how you feel about the spokesperson for GCC or any other topic you care to name. All that matters is the validity of the evidence offered.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Yes, so we accept your words on faith and then begin massive economic ans social movements to forestall the problem? Gee, sounds familiar.


No, dipshiat, you accept if based on a mountain of evidence and the same methodological and philosophical assumptions that allow you to accept every other science out there. Compared to something like relativity physics, cosmology or quantum physics, climatology is simple and mundane. You really aren't very well versed in this whole 'science' idea, are you?

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Gullible? Really? Now who's throwing around ad hominem?


It would only be an ad hominem if my calling you and those like you gullible was an argument. It's not. The argument is the science and the empirical data. The fact that you are gullible is just an obvious observation that arises as a consequence of your reaction to said science and data and to the lies being peddled by the shills trying to confuse things.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: It's called job security. And the money being a pittance compared to oil profits is a non-sequitur.


/jaw hanging open, staring in disbelief.

Job security. Job security?! Are you really that stupid? Really!? Here's a big, farking clue for you. If GCC magically vanished tomorrow, people would still be studying the climate, because there's still all kinds of things we would need to be studying, like weather patterns, hurricane formation, droughts, and so on. You know, all the stuff that climatologists were studying before anyone ever heard about GCC, and the stuff that many of them are still studying now. And because it's not a job with much money or prestige associated with it, there would not be much change in the number of people studying it. The people who get into climatology are the people who like climate science.

Meanwhile, the fact that oil profits are enormously high and stand to be heavily impacted if society enacts strict limits on the burning of fossil fuels is not at all a non-sequitor. It's the direct or indirect cause of the vast majority of the anti-GCC derping out there. And as long as they continue to believe that spending some of that money on confusing the matter to prevent any real change will result in more money for them in the final tally than they would have if restrictions on fossil fuels went into effect, they will keep spending money to do so.

Job security. I can barely believe you'd make such a ridiculous argument.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Non-sequitur. Also, whose now talking conspiracies? LOL! Come ON, either talking of conspiracies is either a sign of craziness, or it isn't. Or is it just crazy if your opponents do it? LOL!


In order for this to be a conspiracy, it would have to involve all of the oil companies acting in concert to a secret organized plan. They aren't. They are all acting as individual corporations - but with similar results because the economic pressures are very similar. They are spending money to prevent anti-GCC regulations from affecting their profits. There is loose coordination in the form of lobby groups, and think tanks that receive funding from multiple similar sources, but no outright cabal. It's not necessary. Each of the oil companies as an individual corporate entity has enough clout in terms of money and political influence to create confusion on it's own. Look how much money the Koch brothers alone have poured into anti-GCC PR and pseudoscientific "research". No conspiracy necessary, or even warranted. It would be a waste of their time and resources as well as potentially dangerous (not to mention illegal) for the oil companies to bother with that level of collusion and secrecy.

On the other hand, assuming that 97% of all climate scientists, be they otherwise liberal or conservative, people who are all professional rivals of one another who could make their individual careers by successfully disproving a widely held theory in their discipline, who are all looking to get published in the most prestigious journals possible (instead of the other guys also trying for the same thing), are actually all colluding to deceive and defraud the general public, well, THAT's a conspiracy theory of huge-tinfoil-hat proportions.

Overall, you're talking out your ass. You have no idea what you're talking about, no idea why what you're saying is bullshiat, and demonstrate not only enormous bias, but a complete unwillingness to seek out truth couple with a willingness to go to enourmous effort to rationalize your existing preconceptions.

In short, you're just another close-minded partisan denialist desperately trying and failing to prove that your ignorance is better than the expert's knowledge.
 
2012-11-12 02:05:42 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Finally, the Earth is 4 billion years old. We have (supposedly) accurate temperatures readings for only the last hundred or so years, and imputed temperatures (from tree rings and such) going back - what? - maybe 50,000 years. That's about 0.00125% of the total timeframe. You're going to ruin economies and force Brown People to starve with that kind of statistical sample?


1) Make up your mind. Is global warming a conspiracy to starve brown people or to ramp up the economies of the Third World at the expense of the developed countries?

2) Since when do wingnuts care about brown people?
 
2012-11-12 03:08:28 AM
Kazan:
RedVentrue: The geologic record shows CO2 spikes AFTER the temp increase, not before. How can CO2 be driving the bus from the rear bumper?

*are you farking kidding me look*

CO2 and temperature record show situations where one leads and the other follows, for both. It's called a self-reinforcing cycle. Some CO2 sinks don't work as well (or at all) when they get to warm.

So you're claiming that the laws of physics are different at different times? Well, that IS an interesting approach. Ignorant, but interesting.

The Vostok ice cores show a 400,000 year period. In that period, carbon dioxide levels follow temperatures. At no time does the physics "reverse" and have temperatures following carbon dioxide levels. That's the way it is. Blather all you want, but that fact, alone, falsifies the idea that mankind's carbon dioxide emissions will have any significant effect on climate.

As they say, you are entitled to your own opinions, but NOT to your own facts. Carbon dioxide level changes FOLLOW changes in global temperature; ipso facto, those carbon dioxide levels do not control the temperature.
 
2012-11-12 03:26:45 AM
common sense is an oxymoron:
The periodic temperature spikes observed in the ice-core data are driven by Earth's rotational and orbital cycles, but their effect is greatly amplified by the CO2 released as a result. It's a two-stage process: Changes in Earth's rotation and orbit have a modest effect on temperature and CO2; the increased CO2 then triggers more significant additional warming of its own. As noted in the link, this initial CO2 lag and subsequent amplification was first predicted over 20 years ago.

Really? So, do YOU want to take a whack at explaining how carbon dioxide level changes have no effect during the time of the Vostok ice core samples, and DO have an effect when released by orbital changes? This is a busted hypothesis.
 
2012-11-12 03:41:38 AM

GeneralJim: Kazan: RedVentrue: The geologic record shows CO2 spikes AFTER the temp increase, not before. How can CO2 be driving the bus from the rear bumper?

*are you farking kidding me look*

CO2 and temperature record show situations where one leads and the other follows, for both. It's called a self-reinforcing cycle. Some CO2 sinks don't work as well (or at all) when they get to warm.
So you're claiming that the laws of physics are different at different times? Well, that IS an interesting approach. Ignorant, but interesting.

The Vostok ice cores show a 400,000 year period. In that period, carbon dioxide levels follow temperatures. At no time does the physics "reverse" and have temperatures following carbon dioxide levels. That's the way it is. Blather all you want, but that fact, alone, falsifies the idea that mankind's carbon dioxide emissions will have any significant effect on climate.

As they say, you are entitled to your own opinions, but NOT to your own facts. Carbon dioxide level changes FOLLOW changes in global temperature; ipso facto, those carbon dioxide levels do not control the temperature.



'Chickens cannot lay eggs, as they have been observed hatching from them.'
 
2012-11-12 03:58:01 AM
Every time I read a thread about AGW on Fark, I become more sceptical that there is much validity to the arguments. AGW seems to be the most fervently religious movement since capitalism. It's like the victims of the Titanic clutching onto pieces of the wreckage telling us how reliable the ship is.

As much as my attitude is sceptical, I have no dog in the fight. I actually prefer more renewable forms of energy as well as conservation of various forms. I'd rather walk or ride bicycle than drive. I have multiple college degrees, some of them in the sciences. So why do I remain unconvinced? There is self-interest on both sides. But the scientists are competing for grant money and trying to justify their own existence and projects. You see, there is a large community of students, researchers, teachers, and activists with very much to gain by continued press and exploration of AGW (as well as continued opposition). Most of them are unwitting pawns or panting lapdog lackies. In the end I am much less concerned about AGW than I am about the prospect of energy companies jumping on the AGW bandwagon and profiteering at our expense.
 
2012-11-12 09:40:24 AM
common sense is an oxymoron:
Some people truly believe that the effects of climate change (regardless of its cause), or pollution in any form, can be ignored because "God will provide." Some of those people are in positions of power. That scares me.

Some people douse their drawers over the religious beliefs of others. That amuses me. 

www.deathvalleymag.com
That man doesn't believe what I believe
 
2012-11-12 09:52:19 AM
Kazan:
Just Another OC Homeless Guy:
You mean instruments like these? See pics See pics See pics

as i suspected.. you're a conspiracy theorist.

You refuse to agree that reality is reality. Until such a time that you join the real world we can hold no meaningful conversation. Good day, sir.

Oh, so you're one of the "Why, yes, our weather station is in the pizza oven, but we correct for that" people? Weather stations MUST meet the requirements set for those stations, or they invalidate the readings.
 
2012-11-12 11:16:35 AM
KiltedBastich:
Because anecdotes posted on blogs accompanied by individual photos trump systematic analysis taking the possible problem into effect.

You lie by suggesting that the only thing supporting the idea that weather stations are sited incorrectly is the post to which you reply.

According to an official GAO report, 42% of USHCN Climate Monitoring stations do not meet siting standards -- that's not an "individual photo." Some of them are simply ludicrous, as in within a few feet of air conditioners, in the jet wash of an airport, and so on. Are you claiming the GAO is indulging in conspiracy theories?
 
2012-11-12 11:54:16 AM
common sense is an oxymoron:
See my post above. Improperly sited weather stations have been culled from the record, but now that the record has been "adjusted" it's somehow worthless?

"Memogate" has been thoroughly debunked as well. Link

Your skepticism appears to be misdirected.

You will accept ANYTHING that supports your position, won't you? The same people that "debunked" charges against Jerry Sandusky are the ones who "debunked" charges against Michael Mann. They did the same fine job in both cases. If you buy that, well...

And if you think that the stations dropped were the most egregiously poorly placed ones, you're sadly mistaken. If the "hot" stations were dropped, why does the temperature LEAP up when they are removed? The truth is, COOLER stations were removed, not the ones that were poorly sited. See for yourself:


www.youdontsay.org 
 
2012-11-12 12:09:53 PM
common sense is an oxymoron:
That's perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable is denying the existence of climate change because you disagree with some of the proposed solutions.

Also not reasonable is misstating someone else's position, and deriding your misstatement. Straw man, anyone?

He has NOT said anything like that, nor has anyone else of which I am aware. First off, your attempt to Godwin skepticism is quasi-retarded. Second, again, nobody of which I am aware is denying that climate changes. What IS being denied is that the alarmist claims of the warmers, which have been repeatedly falsified by research, are true. Humans are NOT wildly changing the climate through carbon dioxide release. The planet is amazingly resistant to temperature changes due to changes in GHGs.

And this skepticism is NOT the result of "oil companies" having shills. That's a pants-on-head conspiracy theory. Energy companies will make MORE money, over a longer time, if draconian carbon taxes are implemented. They are NOT fighting this. Not that they are interested in saving people money... It is just that their lobbyists have written the proposed legislation, which now gives them a guaranteed profit. Energy companies have quit resisting this, just as insurance companies quit resisting Obamacare, once their lobbyists had written the bill. Take off your tinfoil hat.

Current "skepticism" is not even that -- currently, the science has falsified AGW, and resistance to the warmer alarmists is simply science resisting political influence. There is no science backing alarmist predictions of massive temperature change. Here's what science shows:

Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations (new window)
Data Source: Observational -- Sensitivity: (1.3 to 1.8 K)
 
2012-11-12 01:12:41 PM

BoxOfBees: Every time I read a thread about AGW on Fark, I become more sceptical that there is much validity to the arguments. AGW seems to be the most fervently religious movement since capitalism. It's like the victims of the Titanic clutching onto pieces of the wreckage telling us how reliable the ship is.

As much as my attitude is sceptical, I have no dog in the fight. I actually prefer more renewable forms of energy as well as conservation of various forms. I'd rather walk or ride bicycle than drive. I have multiple college degrees, some of them in the sciences. So why do I remain unconvinced? There is self-interest on both sides. But the scientists are competing for grant money and trying to justify their own existence and projects. You see, there is a large community of students, researchers, teachers, and activists with very much to gain by continued press and exploration of AGW (as well as continued opposition). Most of them are unwitting pawns or panting lapdog lackies. In the end I am much less concerned about AGW than I am about the prospect of energy companies jumping on the AGW bandwagon and profiteering at our expense.


Facts be dammed huh?
 
2012-11-12 01:14:38 PM

GeneralJim: KiltedBastich: Because anecdotes posted on blogs accompanied by individual photos trump systematic analysis taking the possible problem into effect.
You lie by suggesting that the only thing supporting the idea that weather stations are sited incorrectly is the post to which you reply.

According to an official GAO report, 42% of USHCN Climate Monitoring stations do not meet siting standards -- that's not an "individual photo." Some of them are simply ludicrous, as in within a few feet of air conditioners, in the jet wash of an airport, and so on. Are you claiming the GAO is indulging in conspiracy theories?


Do you know what the standards are for weather stations?
 
2012-11-12 01:30:21 PM

KiltedBastich: RedVentrue: AGW seems to be, and scientific conclusions ARE decided by popular vote, among scientists, and science gets VERY political. When money is involved, scientific agnostisism can go right out the window. The AGW arguement is very politically motivated. AGW belongs in the politics tab, not the geek tab.

The science is the science. That it has been politicized is beside the point. And you are quite wrong when you say scientists decide by popular vote. Phlogiston was very popular. So was geocentrism. They were both factually incorrect, and that was the important point. Science is not a popularity contest. It is a contest of logic, fact, and mathematics, none of which are subject to popularity. The social aspect of science, where popularity plays a very large role, is involved in what the accepted questions are, which disciplines are deemed important and which not, who gets political support, etc. Those are all very important and have a critical role, but it does not have bearing on the accuracy and validity of the underlying science except to the extent that it can interfere with the availability of resources (time, money, equipment, manpower, etc.) needed to do that science...


The various interpetations of data and the ramifications are very much a popularity contest. If results can be interpeted two different ways, you can bet they will be, and it's apopularity contest from there. I've seen enough physics debates to know that.
 
2012-11-12 01:32:59 PM

guyinjeep16: BoxOfBees: Every time I read a thread about AGW on Fark, I become more sceptical that there is much validity to the arguments. AGW seems to be the most fervently religious movement since capitalism. It's like the victims of the Titanic clutching onto pieces of the wreckage telling us how reliable the ship is.

As much as my attitude is sceptical, I have no dog in the fight. I actually prefer more renewable forms of energy as well as conservation of various forms. I'd rather walk or ride bicycle than drive. I have multiple college degrees, some of them in the sciences. So why do I remain unconvinced? There is self-interest on both sides. But the scientists are competing for grant money and trying to justify their own existence and projects. You see, there is a large community of students, researchers, teachers, and activists with very much to gain by continued press and exploration of AGW (as well as continued opposition). Most of them are unwitting pawns or panting lapdog lackies. In the end I am much less concerned about AGW than I am about the prospect of energy companies jumping on the AGW bandwagon and profiteering at our expense.

Facts be dammed huh?


Your facts are not facts, they are inferences. :)
 
2012-11-12 02:28:28 PM

GeneralJim: KiltedBastich: Because anecdotes posted on blogs accompanied by individual photos trump systematic analysis taking the possible problem into effect.
You lie by suggesting that the only thing supporting the idea that weather stations are sited incorrectly is the post to which you reply.

According to an official GAO report, 42% of USHCN Climate Monitoring stations do not meet siting standards -- that's not an "individual photo." Some of them are simply ludicrous, as in within a few feet of air conditioners, in the jet wash of an airport, and so on. Are you claiming the GAO is indulging in conspiracy theories?


And as everyone and their kid brother has been telling you ad nauseam, any problems that may have arisen from that effect in the USA have already been accounted for. Note that GCC is a global problem, not a USA problem. The data used for calculations about GCC are not limited to the USA.

But you know all that already. You're just too much of a dishonest partisan to ever admit it.
 
2012-11-12 02:34:30 PM

RedVentrue: guyinjeep16: BoxOfBees: Every time I read a thread about AGW on Fark, I become more sceptical that there is much validity to the arguments. AGW seems to be the most fervently religious movement since capitalism. It's like the victims of the Titanic clutching onto pieces of the wreckage telling us how reliable the ship is.

As much as my attitude is sceptical, I have no dog in the fight. I actually prefer more renewable forms of energy as well as conservation of various forms. I'd rather walk or ride bicycle than drive. I have multiple college degrees, some of them in the sciences. So why do I remain unconvinced? There is self-interest on both sides. But the scientists are competing for grant money and trying to justify their own existence and projects. You see, there is a large community of students, researchers, teachers, and activists with very much to gain by continued press and exploration of AGW (as well as continued opposition). Most of them are unwitting pawns or panting lapdog lackies. In the end I am much less concerned about AGW than I am about the prospect of energy companies jumping on the AGW bandwagon and profiteering at our expense.

Facts be dammed huh?

Your facts are not facts, they are inferences. :)


Do you know what the temperature of the earth would be if you took all the CO2 from the atmosphere?
 
2012-11-12 02:37:18 PM

RedVentrue: The various interpetations of data and the ramifications are very much a popularity contest. If results can be interpeted two different ways, you can bet they will be, and it's apopularity contest from there. I've seen enough physics debates to know that.


That's the point. When you have multiple possible interpretations, the proper response is not an ideological he-said/she-said argument. It is to formulate a research question that can resolve the issue with more data. If you can't find such a question, then the issue remains unresolved at that time until new methods or ideas make possible a distinction. "I don't know" is a better answer from a scientific perspective than an answer derived from partisan popularity or unpopularity. That's a fairly decent shorthand for the process of science in general, actually, because all new data leads to new possible interpretations, which leads to the need for new data, and so on.

Regardless of what a lay person would think, the popularity of an scientific assertion is never, ever a valid reason to accept or discount that scientific assertion. Popularity is certainly a reason that does motivate people to attack or defend an idea, but that's because we're all human and we do things for the wrong reasons routinely.

Note that the aforementioned is not the situation of climate change. There is no scientific uncertainty. There's a deep, complex and well-understood scientific consensus supported by virtually all the relevant experts and by moutains of empirical data that happens to be sufficiently complex to be difficult to grasp for the lay person, and there is a bunch of lies and misleading statements produced by a small number of paid shills and lobbyists that is nonetheless simple enough for a lay person to grasp specifically because it's a PR campaign designed to confuse the issue. That is in no way indicative of an actual variety of possible accepted scientific explanations, regardless of what the shills and lobbyists are telling you.
 
2012-11-12 02:39:23 PM

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: That's perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable is denying the existence of climate change because you disagree with some of the proposed solutions.
Also not reasonable is misstating someone else's position, and deriding your misstatement. Straw man, anyone?

He has NOT said anything like that, nor has anyone else of which I am aware. First off, your attempt to Godwin skepticism is quasi-retarded. Second, again, nobody of which I am aware is denying that climate changes. What IS being denied is that the alarmist claims of the warmers, which have been repeatedly falsified by research, are true. Humans are NOT wildly changing the climate through carbon dioxide release. The planet is amazingly resistant to temperature changes due to changes in GHGs.

And this skepticism is NOT the result of "oil companies" having shills. That's a pants-on-head conspiracy theory. Energy companies will make MORE money, over a longer time, if draconian carbon taxes are implemented. They are NOT fighting this. Not that they are interested in saving people money... It is just that their lobbyists have written the proposed legislation, which now gives them a guaranteed profit. Energy companies have quit resisting this, just as insurance companies quit resisting Obamacare, once their lobbyists had written the bill. Take off your tinfoil hat.

Current "skepticism" is not even that -- currently, the science has falsified AGW, and resistance to the warmer alarmists is simply science resisting political influence. There is no science backing alarmist predictions of massive temperature change. Here's what science shows:

Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations (new window)
Data Source: Observational -- Sensitivity: (1.3 to 1.8 K)



There's a lot of stuff wrong with your posts, but let's focus on this one since it's the most straightforward - if you can't deal with your mistake here in an honest way, there's little hope you'll be able to handle anything more complicated.

The paper and the value you quote isn't climate sensitivity (ECS - equilibrium climate sensitivity) but instead transient climate response (TCR), and not sensitivity (ECS). The values given are on the low end of what the IPCC considered, but within the range they mentioned.

There's no room for subjectivity here - you are simply wrong on this point. Let's see if you can respond to this really basic mistake of yours in a rational, adult way instead of trying to change the subject and ignoring it.
 
2012-11-12 02:56:23 PM

KiltedBastich: RedVentrue: The various interpetations of data and the ramifications are very much a popularity contest. If results can be interpeted two different ways, you can bet they will be, and it's apopularity contest from there. I've seen enough physics debates to know that.

That's the point. When you have multiple possible interpretations, the proper response is not an ideological he-said/she-said argument. It is to formulate a research question that can resolve the issue with more data. If you can't find such a question, then the issue remains unresolved at that time until new methods or ideas make possible a distinction. "I don't know" is a better answer from a scientific perspective than an answer derived from partisan popularity or unpopularity. That's a fairly decent shorthand for the process of science in general, actually, because all new data leads to new possible interpretations, which leads to the need for new data, and so on.

Regardless of what a lay person would think, the popularity of an scientific assertion is never, ever a valid reason to accept or discount that scientific assertion. Popularity is certainly a reason that does motivate people to attack or defend an idea, but that's because we're all human and we do things for the wrong reasons routinely.

Note that the aforementioned is not the situation of climate change. There is no scientific uncertainty. There's a deep, complex and well-understood scientific consensus supported by virtually all the relevant experts and by moutains of empirical data that happens to be sufficiently complex to be difficult to grasp for the lay person, and there is a bunch of lies and misleading statements produced by a small number of paid shills and lobbyists that is nonetheless simple enough for a lay person to grasp specifically because it's a PR campaign designed to confuse the issue. That is in no way indicative of an actual variety of possible accepted scientific explanations, regardless of what the shills and lobby ...


The AGW has never uttered the phrase "I don't know". That is what makes me sceptical that they do know. The AGW is full of partisan money and political infuence. That makes me suspicious.

Thank you for making my point for me. AGW is not climate science. It is a political movement masquerade pretending to be climate science.
 
2012-11-12 03:19:25 PM

RedVentrue: The AGW has never uttered the phrase "I don't know". That is what makes me sceptical that they do know. The AGW is full of partisan money and political infuence. That makes me suspicious.

Thank you for making my point for me. AGW is not climate science. It is a political movement masquerade pretending to be climate science.


Wow, you really are stupid. You linked my entire post, INCLUDING the part at the end where I said, very clearly,

KiltedBastich: Note that the aforementioned is not the situation of climate change. There is no scientific uncertainty. There's a deep, complex and well-understood scientific consensus supported by virtually all the relevant experts and by moutains of empirical data that happens to be sufficiently complex to be difficult to grasp for the lay person, and there is a bunch of lies and misleading statements produced by a small number of paid shills and lobbyists that is nonetheless simple enough for a lay person to grasp specifically because it's a PR campaign designed to confuse the issue. That is in no way indicative of an actual variety of possible accepted scientific explanations, regardless of what the shills and lobbyists are telling you.


Thank you for proving that you are an willfully ignorant partisan unwilling to learn anything that comes from outside the echo chamber of your pre-existing conclusions.
 
2012-11-12 03:32:37 PM

KiltedBastich: RedVentrue: The AGW has never uttered the phrase "I don't know". That is what makes me sceptical that they do know. The AGW is full of partisan money and political infuence. That makes me suspicious.

Thank you for making my point for me. AGW is not climate science. It is a political movement masquerade pretending to be climate science.

Wow, you really are stupid. You linked my entire post, INCLUDING the part at the end where I said, very clearly,

KiltedBastich: Note that the aforementioned is not the situation of climate change. There is no scientific uncertainty. There's a deep, complex and well-understood scientific consensus supported by virtually all the relevant experts and by moutains of empirical data that happens to be sufficiently complex to be difficult to grasp for the lay person, and there is a bunch of lies and misleading statements produced by a small number of paid shills and lobbyists that is nonetheless simple enough for a lay person to grasp specifically because it's a PR campaign designed to confuse the issue. That is in no way indicative of an actual variety of possible accepted scientific explanations, regardless of what the shills and lobbyists are telling you.

Thank you for proving that you are an willfully ignorant partisan unwilling to learn anything that comes from outside the echo chamber of your pre-existing conclusions.


Thank you for proving that you are a yes man for a political agenda.
 
2012-11-12 03:34:27 PM

KiltedBastich: RedVentrue: The AGW has never uttered the phrase "I don't know". That is what makes me sceptical that they do know. The AGW is full of partisan money and political infuence. That makes me suspicious.

Thank you for making my point for me. AGW is not climate science. It is a political movement masquerade pretending to be climate science.

Wow, you really are stupid. You linked my entire post, INCLUDING the part at the end where I said, very clearly,

KiltedBastich: Note that the aforementioned is not the situation of climate change. There is no scientific uncertainty. There's a deep, complex and well-understood scientific consensus supported by virtually all the relevant experts and by moutains of empirical data that happens to be sufficiently complex to be difficult to grasp for the lay person, and there is a bunch of lies and misleading statements produced by a small number of paid shills and lobbyists that is nonetheless simple enough for a lay person to grasp specifically because it's a PR campaign designed to confuse the issue. That is in no way indicative of an actual variety of possible accepted scientific explanations, regardless of what the shills and lobbyists are telling you.

Thank you for proving that you are an willfully ignorant partisan unwilling to learn anything that comes from outside the echo chamber of your pre-existing conclusions.


There is ALWAYS a scientific uncertainty. To say otherwise is extremely unscientific of you.
 
2012-11-12 04:11:29 PM
common sense is an oxymoron:
To suggest that conditions, say, 2 billion years ago are by necessity relevant today is to ignore the vast differences in atmospheric composition, solar insolation, the distribution of continents and oceans, etc., that practically make it a comparison between two different planets. Unless you can specifically identify past events when CO2 levels changed like they are now, the full temperature record just isn't particularly relevant.

So, who is it that is comparing temperatures from two billion years ago? What is important is the last roughly 500 million miles, as once the planet became heavily inhabited by flora and fauna, (whose important contributions to the atmosphere regulate it) THEN historical data becomes VERY significant. And, over this essentially congruent atmosphere, carbon dioxide levels have had little to do with temperature, other than that, at a micro level, small changes in carbon dioxide FOLLOW temperature changes, proving that carbon dioxide doesn't control temperature.
 
2012-11-12 04:35:49 PM

RedVentrue: Thank you for proving that you are a yes man for a political agenda.


static.ddmcdn.com

I'm not the one arguing that the FUD peddled by fossil fuel industry lobbyists and their paid shills is just as valid as the considered conclusions of the vast majority of all climate scientists. That would be you, oh drinker of the kool-aid.

RedVentrue: There is ALWAYS a scientific uncertainty. To say otherwise is extremely unscientific of you.


scientific uncertainty =/= both sides are equally valid. This is just another trite talking point. Did you swipe that one from the creationists?

To expand, the uncertainty in the scientific consensus of climate change is in the nuances and details. Exactly how much will the climate change? Exactly how much do we need to reduce carbon output to curtail things? What will be the detailed results of the rise in temperature on the world and on human society? There is indeed uncertainty there. And of course there is uncertainty in the philosophical sense that nothing in science is ever proven to an absolute standard of proof. But as in fact nothing at all that humans are aware of is ever proven to an absolute sense given the limitations on our senses and cognition, that is yet another red herring argument.

But do go on grasping at straws. I am enjoying pointing and laughing at your stupid.

GeneralJim: So, who is it that is comparing temperatures from two billion years ago? What is important is the last roughly 500 million miles, as once the planet became heavily inhabited by flora and fauna, (whose important contributions to the atmosphere regulate it) THEN historical data becomes VERY significant. And, over this essentially congruent atmosphere, carbon dioxide levels have had little to do with temperature, other than that, at a micro level, small changes in carbon dioxide FOLLOW temperature changes, proving that carbon dioxide doesn't control temperature.


It's almost as if you'd never heard of positive feedback cycles whereby small changes in temperature created changes in carbon dioxide levels which then precipitated even further increases in temperature. But that can't be the case, because I have personally witnessed people explaining that to you before.

I can only conclude you're either suffering from some form of amnesia or dementia, or that you're a dishonest partisan shill deliberately ignoring the refutations to your talking points.

I wonder which it is. Really. I wonder
 
2012-11-12 04:36:58 PM

RedVentrue: KiltedBastich: RedVentrue: The AGW has never uttered the phrase "I don't know". That is what makes me sceptical that they do know. The AGW is full of partisan money and political infuence. That makes me suspicious.

Thank you for making my point for me. AGW is not climate science. It is a political movement masquerade pretending to be climate science.

Wow, you really are stupid. You linked my entire post, INCLUDING the part at the end where I said, very clearly,

KiltedBastich: Note that the aforementioned is not the situation of climate change. There is no scientific uncertainty. There's a deep, complex and well-understood scientific consensus supported by virtually all the relevant experts and by moutains of empirical data that happens to be sufficiently complex to be difficult to grasp for the lay person, and there is a bunch of lies and misleading statements produced by a small number of paid shills and lobbyists that is nonetheless simple enough for a lay person to grasp specifically because it's a PR campaign designed to confuse the issue. That is in no way indicative of an actual variety of possible accepted scientific explanations, regardless of what the shills and lobbyists are telling you.

Thank you for proving that you are an willfully ignorant partisan unwilling to learn anything that comes from outside the echo chamber of your pre-existing conclusions.

There is ALWAYS a scientific uncertainty. To say otherwise is extremely unscientific of you.


Doe soyu know what the temperature of the planet would be without CO2 in the atmosphere...?

Question for General Jim and Redventure.
 
2012-11-12 04:38:08 PM
Do you know*
 
2012-11-12 04:53:04 PM
KiltedBastich:
CujoQuarrel: Have you looked at that old Fortran code they are using for predictions? It's horribly bad. Badly written badly commented and the use of the Fudge array (cleverly called the Fudge Factor) to adjust the numbers without any real reason listed for what it's for.

That's the East Anglia code. Hopefully there are other models being used now that are better written.

There are about 5 or 6 major data sets used for analysis, all collected independently, and they all agree with each other to a very high degree.

The point -- you missed it. He is discussing CODE, not DATA.

"Oh, ballz. Did you see all the potholes in that road?"
"What do you mean? A dozen cars use this road, and every one of them runs great."

And, by the way, the big problem with the temperature data sets is that jackasses keep modifying the historical data. Observe how just ONE data set has changed over time....


icecap.us
 
2012-11-12 04:56:30 PM

KiltedBastich: In short


lulz
 
2012-11-12 05:12:03 PM

GeneralJim: The point -- you missed it. He is discussing CODE, not DATA.

"Oh, ballz. Did you see all the potholes in that road?"
"What do you mean? A dozen cars use this road, and every one of them runs great."


For the benefit of those who are apparently unable to add 2+2 and get 4, the point is that the other major data sets are not calculated using the same underlying code, because it's not the same team and they don't use exactly the same methods. So whatever problems you might have with the code used for calculating one data set, it remains that there are multiple data sets that were analyzed using multiple methods independently of each other that all got very similar results. In science that's called "replication", and it's one of the big ways the validity and reliability of a finding is proved.

But again, you know that alreayd, and are simply too dishonest to ever admit it.

GeneralJim: And, by the way, the big problem with the temperature data sets is that jackasses keep modifying the historical data. Observe how just ONE data set has changed over time....


Gee, so you've proven you can create a false conspiracy by monkeying around with the scaling of a graph. I'm unimpressed. Try it again when all the horizontal and vertical scales are identical on all three graphs, dipshiat. You might also want to check the original sources of those graphs, as opposed to your denialist blog source. Someone drawing an inaccurate graph from a data set is not the same thing as saying the data set is inaccurate or has been changed. But again, I don't really expect you to be willing to grasp that point. It might require you to rethink some of your preconceptions, and you'd never let that happen.
 
2012-11-12 05:40:11 PM

threadjackistan, you write:

Because if one thing screams "can be instantly turned off," it's a giant structure that's hundreds of thousands of miles from the nearest anything.

Well, yes, actually. A large mirror in space, as was under discussion, needs to be adjusted from time to time, and is either controlled by radio from the ground, or uses a computer on-board to make adjustments. In either case, input from the ground should be available. That means that the mirror could be either turned, or located elsewhere in orbit with ease. Pulling megatons of crap out of the air or water, not so much.

Worst case, the mirror could be moved with a single space mission, or even blown up with missiles. That last one is not a great idea, because if we build a space mirror, we will need it later to try to warm the planet out of an ice age, or at least postpone it as much as possible.
 
2012-11-12 06:04:35 PM
KiltedBastich:
You don't believe the scientists? Then go read their research directly. Again, I direct you to that Google thing you seem so unaware of. Most of the information is easily found if you take the time. Oh, but that's right, you don't understand the information - and so therefor they must all be lying and involved in a conspiracy. Uh huh. Just like every other scientific discipline you don't understand is a conspiracy.

You are not being at all fair to him... Yeah, yeah, I know, welcome to Fark.

The problem with cheating in science is that the data are released. Other people can keep copies of the old data, and compare it. Global temperature data sets have been systematically altered, "adjusted," and the result of this tampering is to make the past colder, the present warmer, and the temperature curve more closely match carbon dioxide.

Scientists in the field ARE doing good science. But, once the data get from these scientists to the VERY few scientists who are the "gatekeepers" for the global data sets, they are mercilessly tortured to fit the political agenda.

A large number of comparisons of the original data with the "massaged" data are available HERE. A sample:


www.appinsys.com
Older temperatures adjusted down,
recent temperatures adjusted up.

(why are readings more than a hundred years old being adjusted?)


www.appinsys.com
Warming Created by Adjustments to USHCN Data
 
2012-11-12 06:13:13 PM
KiltedBastich:
Who gives a shiat? Who the spokesperson is has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the information. This argument is tantamount to saying "I don't like you so you're wrong". That argument is always invalid, regardless of whether the actual position being challenged is true or not! You have just admitted that you're a partisan who cares more about the politics than the truth of the science.

If you believe that, your fellow warmer alarmists are just jackasses. Probably hundreds of times I've been told that information I present doesn't count because the reference I make to it is via a blog. Even if the blog references the original peer-reviewed paper, the fact that a blog references that paper somehow sullies the data -- at least in the minds of the warmer alarmists. Either that, or they are just so desperate to discredit all the evidence falsifying their position, they grasp at anything to be able to ignore it. "Ha, I won't deal with THAT data, as they appear in a blog. And I won't answer THAT logical challenge, because your text is in green." It's all rather pathetic.

And, allow me to give you some sort of cognitive crisis -- I agree with your point here; information is information. It is either correct or incorrect irrespective of the medium by which it arrives.
 
2012-11-12 06:21:07 PM
KiltedBastich:
Please get this straight. There is no money in climate science for climate scientists. Grant money is a pittance compared to oil profits, and its disbursement is under very strict oversight to be used only for more research.

No, YOU get this straight: funding for climate science has increased TWENTY-FOLD since the dousing of drawers over the phony crisis began. If the public realization of the fraud being perpetrated on them ONLY results in a return to previous funding, 95% of all climate research funding will disappear.

But, you are correct that only very few scientists are corrupted by the money; only Phil Jones has been caught with too much money in his research account, and only James Hansen and Michael Mann have clearly violated their "outside income" guidelines. I would also point out that for every dollar contributed to research by "evil oil companies," environmental groups contribute TEN. Also, for every environmental group's dollar, government contributes TEN. Are you trying to imply that the less than one percent of the money that comes from "evil oil companies" corrupts scientists, while ten or a hundred times more money does NOT? Please explain your logic.
 
2012-11-12 06:31:03 PM
KiltedBastich:
Newflash: Science is not decided by popular vote, sorry. And to repeat what should be blatantly obvious, there is no money in climate science for climate scientists. Otherwise the fossil fuel lobbyists and their private partisan think tanks would not be able to successfully thwart the collective consensus of 97% of the world's climate scientists and the decades of painstaking research they base their conclusions on.

You are arguing with yourself. Maybe you should take it off-line.

You are correct that science (the factual part) is NOT decided by popular vote. As you then go on to prove, however, scientific argumentation OFTEN uses the "popular vote" as evidence. But, as you say, there is NO validity to arguments from authority, even when that "authority" is an alleged majority.

At this point, allow me to add that, using the criteria used by Oreskes in her study, *I* would be counted as part of that 97%. And I am rather more virulently opposed to the fraud of "Global Climate Apocalypse," or whatever this week's term is, than most. So, her study, to use a scientific phrase, sucks balls.
 
2012-11-12 06:51:04 PM
common sense is an oxymoron:
Past trends become less relevant when a new forcing mechanism takes over. For example, temperatures correlated quite well with solar output for decades...up until CO2 became a more important factor:

So, according to your graph, you are saying that you believe that carbon dioxide is having an effect upon temperature, but that it only started in 1980. That's very interesting.

It also is MUCH more likely to be true than the bullshiat being pushed by your warmer buddies, whom you are back-stabbing with this comment. They are asserting that carbon dioxide has been controlling temperature for over a century. Are you saying they're full of it? If not, what ARE you saying?

And, what you are saying falls right in line with Miskolczi's work. Carbon dioxide WOULD require a significant increase, generating a noticeable spike in temperature, which would then activate correction mechanisms, such as lowering upper tropospheric water vapor levels - that is, specific humidity. Let's see if that has happened.... Yep:
 

www.masterresource.org
 
2012-11-12 07:03:47 PM
common sense is an oxymoron:
If present trends continue, Earth's climate will be very different 100 years from now. Nearly all of the world's scientists agree on this. The only disagreement is about the amount and the rate of change.

In other words, climatologists are in agreement about the overall effects; only the magnitude and speed of the change are in question.

Well, yeah. But the magnitude and speed are absolutely crucial to decision-making. Let's say, as appears to be the case from empirical data, that, at our current rate of carbon dioxide release, we will increase the temperature of the planet by about 0.2 K by the year 2100. What kind of response does that justify?
 
2012-11-12 08:29:33 PM

GeneralJim: You are not being at all fair to him... Yeah, yeah, I know, welcome to Fark.

The problem with cheating in science is that the data are released. Other people can keep copies of the old data, and compare it. Global temperature data sets have been systematically altered, "adjusted," and the result of this tampering is to make the past colder, the present warmer, and the temperature curve more closely match carbon dioxide.

Scientists in the field ARE doing good science. But, once the data get from these scientists to the VERY few scientists who are the "gatekeepers" for the global data sets, they are mercilessly tortured to fit the political agenda.

A large number of comparisons of the original data with the "massaged" data are available HERE. A sample:


Don't you ever get tired of recycling the same old busted talking points? The explanation for your supposed conspiracy is here. Short version is very simple. The graph you are trumpeting is the analysed results, not the raw data. But strangely enough, climatologists, like most scientists, are constantly revising their methods, including the math. And when you reanalyse old raw data with newer, more reliable methods, the results aren't the same as the old numbers, and so you have to adjust the published information. That is in fact exactly the point of using new methodology in the first place. This is not a conspiracy. This is just normal science. You're just butthurt that the revised methodology does not support your preconceptions.

This isn't unique to climatology you know. Every single scientific discipline does this. Reanalyzing existing raw data sets when applicable new methodologies are developed is routine. Only when it is politicized as you are now doing does anyone kick up a fuss.

GeneralJim: If you believe that, your fellow warmer alarmists are just jackasses. Probably hundreds of times I've been told that information I present doesn't count because the reference I make to it is via a blog. Even if the blog references the original peer-reviewed paper, the fact that a blog references that paper somehow sullies the data -- at least in the minds of the warmer alarmists. Either that, or they are just so desperate to discredit all the evidence falsifying their position, they grasp at anything to be able to ignore it. "Ha, I won't deal with THAT data, as they appear in a blog. And I won't answer THAT logical challenge, because your text is in green." It's all rather pathetic.

And, allow me to give you some sort of cognitive crisis -- I agree with your point here; information is information. It is either correct or incorrect irrespective of the medium by which it arrives.


Wow, you so do not get it. The sources you publish are not credible because they lie. They misrepresent data, and they do not adhere to rigorous standards of proof and disclosure. That's why we keep telling you to stick to original sources like scientific journals and research bodies - because they have the credibility to make believable claims that their data is being presented without distortion for evaluation on its merits, and they have something to lose in terms of professional standing if they are lying, and their are mechanisms in place for those agencies for data to be challenged if it isn't correct. All of those things are in place specifically in order to minimize the possibility of partisan obfuscation or lying.

Blogs which are obviously and blatantly partisan that deliberately misrepresent data are the exact opposite. They are not trustworthy because there is actual evidence that they are screwing with the numbers, for example all your cherry-picked charts that purport to show no warming for a 12 or 14 year period by starting on the effing 1998 temperature outlier to skew the distribution.

Evidence can only speak for itself when there is valid grounds to assert that the data is reliable. That's why professional reputation is all-important in the sciences, and why there is a competitive peer-review system in the first place - to offer as much of a guarantee as possible that the data will be sound. That's also why replication is so vital in science, because it is possible to get aberrant results due to chance from time to time even when using otherwise sound methodologies. Incidentally, you obviously know this, which is why you spend so much energy trying to trump up conspiracy stories to make it seem like someone is out to change the numbers to make all the mountains of data on GCC out to be false - because that's the only way your denialist fantasizing could be legitimate, no matter how ridiculously far-fetched the narratives you have to construct are.

GeneralJim: No, YOU get this straight: funding for climate science has increased TWENTY-FOLD since the dousing of drawers over the phony crisis began. If the public realization of the fraud being perpetrated on them ONLY results in a return to previous funding, 95% of all climate research funding will disappear.


FIrst, citition needed. Second, that's still a drop in the bucket compared to the money the oil industry has to play with. Third, that still doesn't mean that climate scientists are getting rich, because, to repeat, again, what you already know, grant money for research CANNOT be used for personal purposes. It can only be used for research purposes; the disbursement is under strict oversight as anyone who has ever worked in any research lab anywhere knows intimately. So even if there has been a twenty-fold increase in funding, all that means is a twenty fold increase in research. That is a very different thing than fossil fuel PROFITS, which go into enriching folks like the Koch brothers.

GeneralJim: But, you are correct that only very few scientists are corrupted by the money; only Phil Jones has been caught with too much money in his research account, and only James Hansen and Michael Mann have clearly violated their "outside income" guidelines. I would also point out that for every dollar contributed to research by "evil oil companies," environmental groups contribute TEN. Also, for every environmental group's dollar, government contributes TEN. Are you trying to imply that the less than one percent of the money that comes from "evil oil companies" corrupts scientists, while ten or a hundred times more money does NOT? Please explain your logic.


Again, citation needed. I have never seen any substantiated proof of the money you speak of. All I have seen are slanderous rumors spread on various partisan blogs who I have already caught lying about the numbers in climate science. Why should I trust them to be any more honest about financial numbers?

And of course environmental groups and government contribute much more money to research than oil companies. The oil companies do spend some of their money on some poorly done shill research, but they also contribute to "think tanks" like the Cato group who put out their own false and misleading publications, to lobby groups, and to SuperPACs and directly to political campaigns instead - because at the end of the day they know damn well that the science is not on their side, so they find other means to confuse the issue. Spending all that money on research would not help them, because unlike politics and PR, the science won't change just because they throw money at it.

GeneralJim: You are arguing with yourself. Maybe you should take it off-line.

You are correct that science (the factual part) is NOT decided by popular vote. As you then go on to prove, however, scientific argumentation OFTEN uses the "popular vote" as evidence. But, as you say, there is NO validity to arguments from authority, even when that "authority" is an alleged majority.


Not so. What you are doing is a popular misrepresentation of science. It is certainly true that experts will assert that one position or the other is correct, but they do so based on the research and data performed, and there is always an implicit invitation to examine the data and do the work necessary to show it is not so, because that is how science progresses, by overturning or revising previous science in the light of new data. Scientific consensus is not based on popularity, but on weight of evidence and replication. Not how many people believe something is true, but on how much data from multiple experiments support the conclusion. Those two things are very, very different, and you seem to be unable to grasp that critical nuance.

GeneralJim: At this point, allow me to add that, using the criteria used by Oreskes in her study, *I* would be counted as part of that 97%. And I am rather more virulently opposed to the fraud of "Global Climate Apocalypse," or whatever this week's term is, than most. So, her study, to use a scientific phrase, sucks balls.


You part of that 97%? Hardly. If your generally poor grasp of scientific methodology and practice weren't evidence enough, your following statement betrays the falsity of that statement, as only a denialist would use "apocalypse" in such a disparaging and sensationalist sense. Again, it's not like the term Global Climate Change is new to you. You're just not honest enough to admit it. Your self-inclusion in that group smacks of egotism, not to mention a means to construct a flimsy excuse to discount it.

No matter how much you try, the science is what the science is. The only way to disprove it is to find a better explanation using the same methods and practices, all of which exist for a reason. That means no reliance on partisan blogs, no cherry-picked graphs, no relying on single studies and ignoring the majority of results, and no bloviating about conspiracies. Do the work, and if reality at large continues to insist on disagreeing with your preconceptions, too farking bad for you.

The methods and practices of science on a social level exist for a very, very good reason, and neither you nor any of your denialist reactionary friends get to ignore them, no matter how much you might want to.
 
2012-11-13 01:20:11 AM

GeneralJim: [being GeneralJim]



Things I take for granted:

1. The sun will rise in the east.

2. Nate Silver's predictions will be accurate.

3. You will post the same old (and oft-discredited) links and graphs in Fark climate threads while hurling the same old insults and continuing to choose willful ignorance over rational discourse.
 
2012-11-13 01:58:18 AM
Also...

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: That's perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable is denying the existence of climate change because you disagree with some of the proposed solutions.

Also not reasonable is misstating someone else's position, and deriding your misstatement. Straw man, anyone?

He has NOT said anything like that, nor has anyone else of which I am aware. First off, your attempt to Godwin skepticism is quasi-retarded.



WTF??? Do you even know what Godwin's Law is?

And actually, he did imply something of the sort, although not entirely seriously. Furthermore, his response was a nuanced clarification of his opinion. Your understanding of logical fallacies seems to match your understanding of Godwining, or of nuance.
 
2012-11-13 09:21:42 PM

guyinjeep16: RedVentrue: KiltedBastich: RedVentrue: The AGW has never uttered the phrase "I don't know". That is what makes me sceptical that they do know. The AGW is full of partisan money and political infuence. That makes me suspicious.

Thank you for making my point for me. AGW is not climate science. It is a political movement masquerade pretending to be climate science.

Wow, you really are stupid. You linked my entire post, INCLUDING the part at the end where I said, very clearly,

KiltedBastich: Note that the aforementioned is not the situation of climate change. There is no scientific uncertainty. There's a deep, complex and well-understood scientific consensus supported by virtually all the relevant experts and by moutains of empirical data that happens to be sufficiently complex to be difficult to grasp for the lay person, and there is a bunch of lies and misleading statements produced by a small number of paid shills and lobbyists that is nonetheless simple enough for a lay person to grasp specifically because it's a PR campaign designed to confuse the issue. That is in no way indicative of an actual variety of possible accepted scientific explanations, regardless of what the shills and lobbyists are telling you.

Thank you for proving that you are an willfully ignorant partisan unwilling to learn anything that comes from outside the echo chamber of your pre-existing conclusions.

There is ALWAYS a scientific uncertainty. To say otherwise is extremely unscientific of you.

Doe soyu know what the temperature of the planet would be without CO2 in the atmosphere...?

Question for General Jim and Redventure.


I'm told it would be cold, but I really don't "KNOW", for myself.

Do you? Really? You could very well be right, and probably you are. It irks me that you guys treat it like a religion. Standard Dem Pillar of Wisdom #5. Humans are bad and the cause of everything bad on the planet.
 
2012-11-13 09:40:40 PM

RedVentrue: guyinjeep16: Doe soyu know what the temperature of the planet would be without CO2 in the atmosphere...?

Question for General Jim and Redventure.

I'm told it would be cold, but I really don't "KNOW", for myself.

Do you? Really? You could very well be right, and probably you are. It irks me that you guys treat it like a religion. Standard Dem Pillar of Wisdom #5. Humans are bad and the cause of everything bad on the planet.



Actually, we do know. The sun's energy output is known, as are Earth's size, orbital distance, and albedo. We therefore know how much energy Earth is receiving, and the equilibrium temperature can be calculated. It's around -18 C or zero F.

No religion taught us this. Human brainpower figured it out just from looking at things and taking careful notes.

Human brainpower also came up with religion, so maybe your "pillar" has some foundation in truth after all.
 
Displayed 50 of 151 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