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.

(CBS News)   Finally   (cbsnews.com) divider line 111
    More: Cool, David Pogue, Pachauri, climate change, extreme weather, greenhouse gases, global warming, Arctic ice  
•       •       •

11108 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Nov 2012 at 8:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-12 12:38:52 AM
ooops, I copied and pasted the wrong link.... This was what I meant to link too.
 
2012-11-12 12:58:26 AM
You've got the scientists going "Burning fossil fuels heats the atmosphere. Record temperatures. Extreme weather!"
And then you've got the skeptics going, "Don't be silly! The Earth has always had warming cycles. Human activity has nothing to do with it."
And I feel sorry for the poor guy caught in the middle!


The only person caught in the middle is the idiot who buys the false equivalency.

Who are you going to believe, the international conspiracy of climatologists driving around in their Porsches, or the poor oil companies with absolutely no financial conflict of interest? Bill Nye the Science Guy, or Rush Limbaugh?

You'd think scientists wanting to commit a global scam would've picked something that would bring in the big bucks, like mastering cold reading and pretending they had proof of the afterlife. 95% of the world's population would line up to hand over every worldly possession to find out if their deceased parents are proud of them.
 
2012-11-12 01:08:28 AM
When are they are going to admit we have been chemtrailling the earth for near a decade- in a horrible experimental attempt to curb global warming...

Sorry, but that topic is not tinfoil hat shiat. 

/The world was flat.
 
2012-11-12 01:22:16 AM
Some interesting ccomments in that link. Here's one:

"by loupgarous100 November 11, 2012 11:35 PM EST
Boulder's only 5,430 feet (1.028 miles) above sea level. I know, because I live in Denver, which as everyone knows, is the Mile High City, and I drive to Boulder now and then. If, as you say, Boulder was 2.2 miles high, it'd be one of the Rocky Mountains, 11,616 feet high - what we call a "teener."

Are the rest of your facts that accurate?

The next time you're in Boulder, please arrange an appointment to see Dr. Chris Landsea of the University of Colorado at Boulder. He severed his association with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change because they allowed other researchers to lie about research that was being conducted under his name - specifically, that increases in hurricane activity were directly and significantly related to global warming. Since Dr. Landsea is a climatologist who was taking part in an IPCC study on the relationship between global warming and hurricane activity (his specialty) he was in the best position possible to know the research being lied about wasn't even close to being complete - so NO ONE could say at that point what influence global warming had on hurricanes.

Dr. Landsea's findings (along with other of his colleagues) were that no significant relation between hurricane activity and global warming existed at the time of the false IPCC announcement or was likely to exist in the future.

You say "If anyone knows the details, it's the IPCC - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - which was created by the United Nations in 1988. Its job is to collect climate-change studies from around the world, and draw conclusions. Its chairman is Rajendra Pachauri, who says the impacts of climate change are becoming progressively more serious."

The IPCC's decision to stand behind a direct lie about the results of some of their research that hadn't even been finished says that you may want to talk to someone with more credibility about global warming than either the IPCC or their director.

The IPCC's director, Rajendra Pachauri, published a study a few years ago that said the glaciers of the Himalayas would melt by 2035 (this is according to The Guardian, one of Britain's most famous newspapers for investigative reporting (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/climate-change-pach auri-un-glaciers, for confirmation of that, and a discussion of several factual errors published by the IPCC). The prediction of the Himalayan glaciers looming demise was a transposition of two numbers in the date by one of Pachauri's graduate students - the date they actually had predicted was 2350), but the rules of scientific publication require that Dr. Pachauri as lead author assume responsibility for every word in that article.

Either he was the prime investigator in that study and responsible, or he was not responsible for anything in that study and his name shouldn't be on it. Pachauri insists he wasn't responsible for the remark, so it's probably wise to doubt anything in any of his papers. You never know what he'll deny responsibilty for next.

You might reconsider the title of your article, "The Scientific Truth About Climate Change." I found two significant factual errors in the article's first page. That makes me very worried about the facts in the rest of the article. Please check your facts better next time."
 
2012-11-12 01:27:09 AM

newton: When are they are going to admit we have been chemtrailling the earth for near a decade- in a horrible experimental attempt to curb global warming...

Sorry, but that topic is not tinfoil hat shiat. 

/The world was flat.


Even if it is tinfoil hat stuff, tinfoil hats wouldn't actually work. If the principle is to block incoming wavelengths that don't show up on any known spectrum, one's best bet would be a faraday cage, as one would guess it's some sort of EM transmission or interference. A tinfoil helmet isn't a faraday cage. It's not even grounded. If anything it'd CONDUCT any unwanted wavelengths. They'd have better chances with a lead helmet coated in rubber.

And that's about as obscure a reference I can make tonight...
 
2012-11-12 01:34:40 AM

WRXminion: So if human action is actually affecting climate change to the degree that these professionals want us to believe then why do these Professionals disagree?
Maybe becouse they study the cause and don't jump to conclusions.


Did you not even read that, or is being a complete idiot who smugly links to a page that dismantles his own argument like some kind of new troll thing?
 
2012-11-12 01:38:30 AM
I still dont believe it.
 
2012-11-12 01:39:34 AM

Thats_right_ALL_the_tea: WRXminion: So if human action is actually affecting climate change to the degree that these professionals want us to believe then why do these Professionals disagree?
Maybe becouse they study the cause and don't jump to conclusions.

Did you not even read that, or is being a complete idiot who smugly links to a page that dismantles his own argument like some kind of new troll thing?


I see you read my 2nd post.....

WRXminion: ooops, I copied and pasted the wrong link.... This was what I meant to link too.

 
2012-11-12 01:47:26 AM
Those using Hurricane Sandy as a justification to ratchet up the global warming panic would do well to read up on the Great September Gale of 1815, a category-3 hurricane (Sandy was category 2) that hit New York in a time before the Industrial Revolution even began and sent up a storm surge high enough to create new permanent waterways in Long Island.

And there were many others. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, Mr. Freud. A freak storm that was the result of the unfortunate convergence of 3 separate systems is not proof that doomsday is here and global warming is going to kill us all. Nor is a "superstorm" hitting the Eastern Seaboard unprecedented or a harbinger of a new meteorological reality. Climate change may indeed be a real phenomenon, but get a grip.
 
2012-11-12 01:51:20 AM

WRXminion: ooops, I copied and pasted the wrong link.... This was what I meant to link too.


That link goes to a list of conferences and videos hosted by the Heartland Institute. According to Wikipedia:

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks.[10][29] Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish "policy studies" which summarized Philip Morris reports.[29][30] The Heartland Institute also undertook a variety of other activities on behalf of Philip Morris, including meeting with legislators, holding "off-the-record" briefings, and producing op-eds, radio interviews, and letters.[29][31] In 1994, at the request of Philip Morris, the Heartland Institute met with Republican Congressmen to encourage them to oppose increases in the federal excise tax. Heartland reported back to Philip Morris that the Congressmen were "strongly in our camp", and planned further meetings with other legislators.[32]

Link

Sounds like an organization with the public's interest in mind.
 
2012-11-12 02:05:05 AM
Still don't care.
 
2012-11-12 02:34:09 AM

limboslam: Still don't care.


Yeah ... I'm getting to the point where I just want to watch the red states burn.

Hopefully Southern Ontario doesn't become the new 'tornado alley' as things shift. Overall we're pretty stable here.
 
2012-11-12 03:56:28 AM
Subby:Finally.....

The Rock.....HAS COME BACK... To Fark.com!

www.worldtvpc.com
 
2012-11-12 04:56:44 AM

WRXminion: So if human action is actually affecting climate change to the degree that these professionals want us to believe then why do these Professionals disagree?
Maybe becouse they study the cause and don't jump to conclusions.


From your own link:
"Do the Earth's volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, "No."" (yeah, it was even bolded for you)

I'm only pointing this out because you're a retard, and I don't think fringe loonies from the Heartland Institute as you said you intended to link have much to add to the discussion. This is settled science. You're fighting on the same side as creationists; "We have 'scientists' too! Look!" It's an ideological circle-jerk, not academic or scientific in the least.
 
2012-11-12 06:49:22 AM
Of course the news agencies can touch it now that the election is over.

MM is about as brave as a battered wife.
 
2012-11-12 10:31:08 AM
...Berkeley

Stopped reading there.
 
2012-11-12 01:15:06 PM

SevenizGud: ...Berkeley

Stopped reading there.


It is a big word, and I know those are difficult for you. Keep trying though, and someday you'll be able to understand the big boy books.
 
2012-11-12 01:22:42 PM

Albinoman: IPCC is an inherently biased source, it's right in the name. Dont get me wrong, climate change is happening, but humans barely have anything to do with it. Our arrogance makes us think it is. CO2 isnt the bogeyman we make it out to be, or Mars (which has far more atmospheric CO2 by weight and volume) should be roasting. The "hockey stick" that CO2 creates doesnt turn up, it flattens out. People want to scare you, but the end of the world is a long, long way out.


Wow...so the fact that Mars is somewhere around twice as far from the sun doesn't matter? Or, how about the fact that it has approximately 1% of the atmospheric weight of Earth? But no, we must instead conclude that CO2 doesn't have an impact?

/I mean, argue against global warming and CO2 being the cause...but...just...wow...
 
2012-11-12 01:25:46 PM

FarkGrudge: Albinoman: IPCC is an inherently biased source, it's right in the name. Dont get me wrong, climate change is happening, but humans barely have anything to do with it. Our arrogance makes us think it is. CO2 isnt the bogeyman we make it out to be, or Mars (which has far more atmospheric CO2 by weight and volume) should be roasting. The "hockey stick" that CO2 creates doesnt turn up, it flattens out. People want to scare you, but the end of the world is a long, long way out.

Wow...so the fact that Mars is somewhere around twice as far from the sun doesn't matter? Or, how about the fact that it has approximately 1% of the atmospheric weight of Earth? But no, we must instead conclude that CO2 doesn't have an impact?

/I mean, argue against global warming and CO2 being the cause...but...just...wow...


Oh, and by the way, if I use your logic, since Venus has more CO2 than Earth and is MUCH hotter than Earth, it must be a result of CO2 right? (Again, ignore relative distance to sun, total atmospheric weight, etc).
 
2012-11-12 01:56:16 PM

HighZoolander: It is a big word, and I know those are difficult for you. Keep trying though, and someday you'll be able to understand the big boy books.


False premise is false. I didn't stop reading there because the word is large. I stopped reading there because affiliation with Berkeley is so left-leaning, it discounts any chance that the item is grounded in reality.

But keep on going with your logical fallacies. It's what you Chicken Littles do best.
 
2012-11-12 02:36:22 PM

SevenizGud: HighZoolander: It is a big word, and I know those are difficult for you. Keep trying though, and someday you'll be able to understand the big boy books.

False premise is false. I didn't stop reading there because the word is large. I stopped reading there because affiliation with Berkeley is so left-leaning, it discounts any chance that the item is grounded in reality.

But keep on going with your logical fallacies. It's what you Chicken Littles do best.


Yeah, clearly Berkeley is divorced from reality, and is practically synonymous with bad science.

Keep farking that 15-year chicken though, someday you might win a prize too.
 
2012-11-12 02:36:47 PM

SevenizGud: HighZoolander: It is a big word, and I know those are difficult for you. Keep trying though, and someday you'll be able to understand the big boy books.

False premise is false. I didn't stop reading there because the word is large. I stopped reading there because affiliation with Berkeley is so left-leaning, it discounts any chance that the item is grounded in reality.

But keep on going with your logical fallacies. It's what you Chicken Littles do best.



8/10
You had me going for a minute there, but that was over the top.
 
2012-11-12 05:00:32 PM

FloydA: SevenizGud: HighZoolander: It is a big word, and I know those are difficult for you. Keep trying though, and someday you'll be able to understand the big boy books.

False premise is false. I didn't stop reading there because the word is large. I stopped reading there because affiliation with Berkeley is so left-leaning, it discounts any chance that the item is grounded in reality.

But keep on going with your logical fallacies. It's what you Chicken Littles do best.


8/10
You had me going for a minute there, but that was over the top.


He is dead serious. This is how stupid he is.

Surprisingly, he hasn't posted his cherry picked graph yet this thread. That's when you see his idiocy in all its glory.
 
2012-11-12 05:32:51 PM
SevinizGud is one of those people who say such blitheringly stupid shiat that they just *have* to be trying to discredit the side they claim to be on.

Anyway, reuse, recycle, I posted this in a related thread:

One of the most frustrating things about deniers (and yes, there's a reason that term is used) is when they assume that researchers are ignoring some major forcing such as the sun, volcanoes, clathrates, whatever and somehow if they were to take that into account, ACC would somehow magically no longer be an issue, or at least no longer our doing.

What they don't get, presumably because they don't want to get it, is that when you add up all the natural factors of solar cycles, vulcanism, Milankovich cycles and so on, it doesn't match what has been observed happening. There's a big gap between what the temperature of the atmosphere *should* be doing when you put the natural forcings all together and what has actually happened.

As it turns out, that gap matches very closely with what would happen if you incorporated pumping gigatonnes of fossil carbon into the atmosphere. Remarkable, that.

This is why it's called anthropogenic climate change. It's the stuff that matches what humans are doing.

But we still get some genius in every thread who seems to think "Yeah, them dumbass scientists probably ignored this factor!"

Well, you go right ahead and call Stockholm, Wile E. I'm sure you'll get the Nobel for your amazing insight that every researcher on the planet missed.
 
2012-11-12 05:57:38 PM

FloydA: Sid M


Right?!? He even laid out a decent plan to colonize a nearby planet just in case things here on Earth turned for the worse....
 
2012-11-12 06:58:45 PM

SevenizGud: HighZoolander: It is a big word, and I know those are difficult for you. Keep trying though, and someday you'll be able to understand the big boy books.

False premise is false. I didn't stop reading there because the word is large. I stopped reading there because affiliation with Berkeley is so left-leaning, it discounts any chance that the item is grounded in reality.

But keep on going with your logical fallacies. It's what you Chicken Littles do best.


So I guess you'd rather get your facts from a conservative-leaning university instead? Is that what you're trying to say? Is that the same thing as getting your polling data from a conservative-leaning polling organization?
 
2012-11-12 07:02:18 PM

Farking Canuck: FloydA: SevenizGud: HighZoolander: It is a big word, and I know those are difficult for you. Keep trying though, and someday you'll be able to understand the big boy books.

False premise is false. I didn't stop reading there because the word is large. I stopped reading there because affiliation with Berkeley is so left-leaning, it discounts any chance that the item is grounded in reality.

But keep on going with your logical fallacies. It's what you Chicken Littles do best.


8/10
You had me going for a minute there, but that was over the top.

He is dead serious. This is how stupid he is.

Surprisingly, he hasn't posted his cherry picked graph yet this thread. That's when you see his idiocy in all its glory.


Nah, you're yanking my chain. Nobody's actually so stupid that he would judge the validity of scientific research on the basis of the city where it was published.

Would they?
 
2012-11-12 08:25:43 PM

FloydA: Nah, you're yanking my chain. Nobody's actually so stupid that he would judge the validity of scientific research on the basis of the city where it was published.

Would they?


I'm guessing you haven't spent any time in right-wing newsy Facebook threads.
 
2012-11-12 08:27:20 PM

FloydA: Farking Canuck: FloydA: SevenizGud: HighZoolander: It is a big word, and I know those are difficult for you. Keep trying though, and someday you'll be able to understand the big boy books.

False premise is false. I didn't stop reading there because the word is large. I stopped reading there because affiliation with Berkeley is so left-leaning, it discounts any chance that the item is grounded in reality.

But keep on going with your logical fallacies. It's what you Chicken Littles do best.


8/10
You had me going for a minute there, but that was over the top.

He is dead serious. This is how stupid he is.

Surprisingly, he hasn't posted his cherry picked graph yet this thread. That's when you see his idiocy in all its glory.

Nah, you're yanking my chain. Nobody's actually so stupid that he would judge the validity of scientific research on the basis of the city where it was published.

Would they?


I heard about some scientific research published in a place called Auschwitz.....
 
2012-11-12 08:39:06 PM

make me some tea: FloydA: Nah, you're yanking my chain. Nobody's actually so stupid that he would judge the validity of scientific research on the basis of the city where it was published.

Would they?

I'm guessing you haven't spent any time in right-wing newsy Facebook threads.


You know me too well. ;-)

(I was being sarcastic there, but you knew that, of course.)
 
2012-11-12 11:33:50 PM
And is there anything we can do about it? Yes.

All we have to do is slaughter half the human race and completely dismantle industrialism. Trouble is politicians are too pussy to make the necessary call, no one wants to die, and those that it to live can't live without air conditioning.

F*ck Earth. It's done. Time to move on.
 
2012-11-13 12:32:10 AM
Lernaeus:

And is there anything we can do about it? Yes.

All we have to do is slaughter half the human race and completely dismantle industrialism. Trouble is politicians are too pussy to make the necessary call, no one wants to die, and those that it to live can't live without air conditioning.

F*ck Earth. It's done. Time to move on.


Or maybe just not be such jackasses indulging in such strawmen.

The United States has actually been reducing it's gasoline consumption since 2007. There was a big deal made recently about China catching up with the US in CO2 emissions, which most pundits claimed as an OMG! THEY'RE WORSE THAN US SO THAT ABSOLVES US, but when you pause to think about it, it really meant... Wait. 4 times as many people just caught up with our own consumption? Holy fark we're pigs!

We're actually at a point where we can do without living in caves and still do well with less energy. There are rather well-funded organizations that would rather we burn *more* energy, that's kind of like asking McDonalds to preach about eating less hamburger. But we actually seem to be doing it despite certain markets. 

Quit with the strawman argument that we have to "dismantle capitalism" in order to survive. It's bullshiat, and shortsighted, and makes for a pretty sad commentary on captitalism if it's that sucky.
 
2012-11-13 12:54:47 AM

Cucullen: The stakes are too high to rely upon the decision making capabilities of mental children who still believe in truths like Santa Claus.


No, we should believe instead that the government is both capable of taking the correct action and actually intent on so doing....I really don't know which sounds more ridiculous.
 
2012-11-13 02:53:48 AM

the opposite of charity is justice: You've got the scientists going "Burning fossil fuels heats the atmosphere. Record temperatures. Extreme weather!"
And then you've got the skeptics going, "Don't be silly! The Earth has always had warming cycles. Human activity has nothing to do with it."
And I feel sorry for the poor guy caught in the middle!

The only person caught in the middle is the idiot who buys the false equivalency.

Who are you going to believe, the international conspiracy of climatologists driving around in their Porsches, or the poor oil companies with absolutely no financial conflict of interest? Bill Nye the Science Guy, or Rush Limbaugh?

You'd think scientists wanting to commit a global scam would've picked something that would bring in the big bucks, like mastering cold reading and pretending they had proof of the afterlife. 95% of the world's population would line up to hand over every worldly possession to find out if their deceased parents are proud of them.


Well its obvious both have their own selfinterests and like all humans want to protect it. Now that global warming and humans interactions in it have been so heavily stated to say anything less would really hurt this field of study and its funding. Climate change is fact global warming is theory some people don't understand the difference. Many geologist aren't as easily swayed towards the global warming camp and reserve their opinions. Truth is the planet and the ecosystem will out last humans get over it.

Article reads
"Scientist your telling the truth about what I believe right?"
"Of course you wouldn't spend billions on shifting policy, and funding research if I didn't tell you the truth would you?"
 
2012-11-13 09:15:28 AM

DerpHerder: Climate change is fact global warming is theory some people don't understand the difference.


And you clearly don't understand what a scientific theory is. Do you think evolution is "just a theory" as well??
 
2012-11-13 09:20:40 AM

Farking Canuck: DerpHerder: Climate change is fact global warming is theory some people don't understand the difference.

And you clearly don't understand what a scientific theory is. Do you think evolution is "just a theory" as well??


And while I'm on the subject - I think you meant to say AGW. The 'anthropogenic' part being the "just a theory" ... please get your talking points correct.

Climate change and global warming are two sides of the same coin. "Climate change" is describing the effects and "global warming" is describing the cause. For everyday use the two are interchangeable.
 
2012-11-13 01:21:52 PM
The Older Peron transgression was a period of unusually warm climate during the Holocene Epoch. It began in the 5000 BCE to 4900 BCE era, and lasted to about 4100 BCE (different climate indices at different locations over the globe yield slightly varying chronologies). The Older Peron was a period of generally clement and balmy weather conditions that favored plant growth; in the dendrochronology of the bristlecone pine, which extends back from the modern era to 6700 BCE, the single best year for the growth of the pine was 4850 BCE, early in the Older Peron era.

The Older Peron was a "transgression" in the sense of marine transgression, a period of advancing global sea level. Warm temperatures forced a retreat in the glaciers and ice sheets of the global cryosphere; throughout the period, global sea levels were 2.5 to 4 meters (8 to 13 feet) higher than the twentieth-century average. The higher sea level lasted for several centuries and eroded coastlines. Several locations around the world have "Older Peron terraces" along their coasts as a result. (The period derives its name from Cape Peron in Western Australia, where a terrace from the relevant era is prominent and was a focus of climatological study.)

The Older Peron transgression was one of a series of gradually diminishing marine transgressions during the middle Holocene. It was followed by the Younger Peron, Abrolhos, and Rottnest transgressions. During the Younger Peron transgression (c. 4000-3400 BCE), sea level peaked at 3 meters above the twentieth-century level; during the Abrolhos (c. 2600-2100 BCE), 1.5 meters; and during the Rottnest (c. 1600-1000 BCE), 1 meter.


Hmm, it`s almost as though the earth has been undergoing regular sea level rise every thousand years or so that is LARGER AND FASTER THAN WE ARE CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING and it has a natural cause.

But that`s crazy talk. I mean if it was true we should expect about 60cm of rise in a period of about 100 years and for it to last about 500-600 years and for that to be happening right about now. And the current warming would be neither novel nor unprecedented.

ludicrous. impossible. I should be insulted just for suggesting it.

I mean, all the models explain how this happened of course.

Anyone got a link that shows how the models explain the older peron, younger peron, abrolhos and rottnest transgressions?
 
2012-11-13 04:45:42 PM

dready zim: ludicrous. impossible. I should be insulted just for suggesting it.


No. No. You should win a Nobel Prize for being the first person to think of looking at history when evaluating current climate change.

All those scientists with all those years of experience and education completely proven wrong by some guy on the internet. Wow ... I'm glad I lived to see this!!

/If only they had looked at the history of climate they wouldn't have been so soundly proven wrong now!!!
 
2012-11-13 05:37:59 PM

dready zim: The Older Peron transgression was a period of unusually warm climate during the Holocene Epoch. It began in the 5000 BCE to 4900 BCE era, and lasted to about 4100 BCE (different climate indices at different locations over the globe yield slightly varying chronologies). The Older Peron was a period of generally clement and balmy weather conditions that favored plant growth; in the dendrochronology of the bristlecone pine, which extends back from the modern era to 6700 BCE, the single best year for the growth of the pine was 4850 BCE, early in the Older Peron era.

The Older Peron was a "transgression" in the sense of marine transgression, a period of advancing global sea level. Warm temperatures forced a retreat in the glaciers and ice sheets of the global cryosphere; throughout the period, global sea levels were 2.5 to 4 meters (8 to 13 feet) higher than the twentieth-century average. The higher sea level lasted for several centuries and eroded coastlines. Several locations around the world have "Older Peron terraces" along their coasts as a result. (The period derives its name from Cape Peron in Western Australia, where a terrace from the relevant era is prominent and was a focus of climatological study.)

The Older Peron transgression was one of a series of gradually diminishing marine transgressions during the middle Holocene. It was followed by the Younger Peron, Abrolhos, and Rottnest transgressions. During the Younger Peron transgression (c. 4000-3400 BCE), sea level peaked at 3 meters above the twentieth-century level; during the Abrolhos (c. 2600-2100 BCE), 1.5 meters; and during the Rottnest (c. 1600-1000 BCE), 1 meter.

Hmm, it`s almost as though the earth has been undergoing regular sea level rise every thousand years or so that is LARGER AND FASTER THAN WE ARE CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING and it has a natural cause.

But that`s crazy talk. I mean if it was true we should expect about 60cm of rise in a period of about 100 years and for it to last about 500-600 ...


So assuming that you're right (whatever, for the sake of argument), an analogous line of reasoning to yours would be that since fires have been started naturally in the past, arson never happens.

Got it. I'm glad you cleared that up, and only by ignoring large piles of evidence that the current warming has a human fingerprint on it. Good to know.
 
2012-11-13 05:42:52 PM

Farking Canuck: dready zim: ludicrous. impossible. I should be insulted just for suggesting it.

No. No. You should win a Nobel Prize for being the first person to think of looking at history when evaluating current climate change.

All those scientists with all those years of experience and education completely proven wrong by some guy on the internet. Wow ... I'm glad I lived to see this!!

/If only they had looked at the history of climate they wouldn't have been so soundly proven wrong now!!!


You know, your post has totally changed my viewpoint. Your sarcastic retort without any factual content has made me realize that I was a fool and a cycle of global warming and cooling with a period that suggests another warming cycle right now cannot possibly be connected with any warming that might be happening right now. Also the warming that would cause a 4metre, 3 meter, 1.5 meter and 1 meter sea level change in a time frame of a century is totally less than the current unprecedented warming which is predicted to cause 60cm of sea level rise some time this century.

Please excuse me while I go out and buy some carbon credits.
 
2012-11-13 05:56:21 PM

HighZoolander: an analogous line of reasoning to yours would be that since fires have been started naturally in the past, arson never happens.


No, it would be like saying that forest fires that happen naturally pretty much yearly can happen naturally pretty much yearly and as it is forest fire season maybe this could be natural.

Your position is like seeing that forest fires happened in the past (like last year) but because people own lighters saying that it is impossible for this years fire to be natural and that a person MUST have started it which is terrible logic. Just because I own a lighter does not mean I started the fire. I could make the forest fire hotter by holding my lighter next to it but as you can imagine, the fire is pretty hot by itself and my lighter doesn`t really make much difference.

1/10 obvious strawman of low quality. Try harder, maybe with some form of citation showing that the older peron etc has been reproduced in a model with accuracy.

I`ll repeat for the hard of reading

Anyone got a link that shows how the models explain the older peron, younger peron, abrolhos and rottnest transgressions? Or do they not do that?
 
2012-11-13 07:02:51 PM

dready zim: No, it would be like saying that forest fires that happen naturally pretty much yearly can happen naturally pretty much yearly and as it is forest fire season maybe this could be natural.


(while ignoring the guy with a lighter and empty gasoline can seen fleeing the scene of the fire and other signs that this fire wasn't due to natural causes)


/you're right that it is logically possible the current warming could be due to natural causes. But you're also ignoring the substantial evidence that the current warming is not actually due to natural causes, and that natural causes don't actually account for the current warming.
 
2012-11-13 07:43:44 PM

HighZoolander: dready zim: No, it would be like saying that forest fires that happen naturally pretty much yearly can happen naturally pretty much yearly and as it is forest fire season maybe this could be natural.

(while ignoring the guy with a lighter and empty gasoline can seen fleeing the scene of the fire and other signs that this fire wasn't due to natural causes)


/you're right that it is logically possible the current warming could be due to natural causes. But you're also ignoring the substantial evidence that the current warming is not actually due to natural causes, and that natural causes don't actually account for the current warming.


You are repeating yourself. I don`t think they can model the previous transgressions and still keep a straight face and say the current warming is unprecedented and novel which is the stated reasoning behind the statement that there is an anthropogenic cause for the current warming. Time will show whether the global temperature rejoins the models or departs from them but one thing we can be sure of is that the planet has been through similar warming quite a few times in the last 6,000 years so any animal or plant species older than that (there are some individual trees nearly that old) probably has the genes to cope with it again and for a few hundred years at that in fact the last time it got warm enough to raise sea level by 3m it was very good for plant and animal life. The best way to predict what the world would be like in a warmer climate is to look at what the world was like in a warmer climate...
 
2012-11-13 08:28:45 PM

dready zim: You know, your post has totally changed my viewpoint. Your sarcastic retort without any factual content has made me realize that I was a fool and a cycle of global warming and cooling with a period that suggests another warming cycle right now cannot possibly be connected with any warming that might be happening right now. Also the warming that would cause a 4metre, 3 meter, 1.5 meter and 1 meter sea level change in a time frame of a century is totally less than the current unprecedented warming which is predicted to cause 60cm of sea level rise some time this century.


Unlike you, I do not claim to know more than the scientists. You really shouldn't look to other anonymous internet posters (or to right-wing blogs) for your evidence. But, since you believe all the scientists are wrong, I'm not sure where you can look.

dready zim: Please excuse me while I go out and buy some carbon credits.


Why would you buy carbon credits? They don't seem like a good idea to me. Or is this some kind of pathetic "one idea for CO2 mitigation isn't great therefore AGW is fake" argument? Because that would be really sad if you're falling back on that pathetic talking point.
 
2012-11-13 08:43:03 PM

dready zim: current warming is unprecedented and novel which is the stated reasoning behind the statement that there is an anthropogenic cause for the current warming


No. This is simply wrong. Factually incorrect. The evidence behind an anthropogenic cause does not depend on whether the warming is unprecedented or novel. I don't know where you've gotten your information, but this is simply incorrect.

Look particularly at 1-4 here, briefly

1. Humans are emitting lots of CO2, a known greenhouse gas
2. carbon in the atmosphere is identifiable as coming from fossil fuels
3. oxygen levels in the atmosphere are declining, as expected as oxygen combines with carbon when fossil fuels are burned
4. carbon in coral is identifiable as coming from fossil fuels
5-10 are lines of evidence that the planet is indeed warming, but you knew that, you're just misinformed about the cause

Do you have any arguments against any of these four points, or do you want to continue with nonsense?
 
2012-11-13 10:25:20 PM
Farking Canuck:

And you clearly don't understand what a scientific theory is. Do you think evolution is "just a theory" as well??

Your a very astute scientist as I can see from how you insult anyone who isn't towing the same line. I always thought science was constantly evolving, and that it changed over time as new discoveries were made not that it was static. You don't seem open to any challenges though, but hey no scientific theory has ever been proven wrong or had holes poked into it right. Why are you so butthurt about people who don't share the same conclusion as you? I never even said I didn't believe humans influence climate change, but I did cast my doubts about it has such a accepted "fact".

And while I'm on the subject - I think you meant to say AGW. The 'anthropogenic' part being the "just a theory" ... please get your talking points correct.

So you nitpick me about my usage on the term which you obviously understood, but then give the go ahead to use two different terms interchangeably because they are commonly used to mean the same thing... I'm confused was my usage of the term incorrect and my distinction of the two terms correct or was my usage of the term correct (since its commonly used to represent what I was speaking of, and you obviously knew what I was talking about) and your disagreement over my distinctions incorrect? Either way it does look good for you, and your irrational reaction to challenges to your belief system.

Climate change and global warming are two sides of the same coin. "Climate change" is describing the effects and "global warming" is describing the cause. For everyday use the two are interchangeable.

Just because people have started using the two terms interchangeably means they are now the same thing, how is that acceptable? Good job contradicting the last sentence you wrote before this.

I was speaking from a geological stand point that is why I referenced it so heavily in my post. Paleoclimatology is the entire history of the Earth climate in geological terms. Global Warming assumes that weather and climate have "normalcy" and bases its studies on short periods geologically speaking. This has all happened before and will happen again. Climate change is a fact in that it happens even if humans did nothing to influence it. Talk to geologists and see what they have to say on the subject matter further ask about how coral reefs have died off twice in history and come back (on the geological time scale), but you seem to think the human time scale should be the measure of everything. Accept what others tell you and dismiss dissenting opinions that is what science is about after all.

"Also the warming that would cause a 4metre, 3 meter, 1.5 meter and 1 meter sea level change in a time frame of a century is totally less than the current unprecedented warming which is predicted to cause 60cm of sea level rise some time this century."
That is ASSUMING current trends hold true stop acting as if this has already happened idiot. Unless you have a time machine?
 
2012-11-13 10:45:46 PM
Look at the most successful organisms on the planet viruses they survive because they are adaptive to a changing environment. They do not try to change the environment they live in, but survive by adapting to its changes. Not only that they allow other organisms to do all the work in gathering resources for them and exploit said organisms. As humans have come up with solutions to combat these organism they adapt and change to be able to survive and thrive. Nature almost always has the best solutions to problems. Humans come up with solutions to problems by viewing the environment around them, a lynch pin of science is observation.
 
2012-11-13 11:51:54 PM

DerpHerder: Global Warming assumes that weather and climate have "normalcy"


Wrong. It is about a rapid warming that we are currently experiencing that above and beyond the natural driving forces.

Deniers like to build a strawman that scientists claim that climate is static. This is not remotely true. It is not about where the climate is ... it is about the magnitude and sources of the forces driving it.

DerpHerder: Your a very astute scientist as I can see from how you insult anyone who isn't towing the same line. I always thought science was constantly evolving, and that it changed over time as new discoveries were made not that it was static. You don't seem open to any challenges though, but hey no scientific theory has ever been proven wrong or had holes poked into it right.


Again, wrong. It is your use of the word 'theory' as if it means speculation that I object to ... typical of people ignorant of science. To reach a point of "scientific theory" the idea has to be heavily supported by evidence and has had to survive challenges. The use of the expression "just a theory" for a scientific theory is a sign of ignorance.

DerpHerder: Just because people have started using the two terms interchangeably means they are now the same thing, how is that acceptable? Good job contradicting the last sentence you wrote before this.


You must get tired of being wrong all the time. There is no contradiction. The two terms are referring to the same effect from different points of view. Global warming is simply looking at the rise in average planetary temperature. Climate change is referring to the resulting changes to earth's climates due to GW. Since most people are referring to the package of climate change due to global warming either term is correct.

If someone was drilling down into the details of one or the other they may need to get more specific. Buy I specifically said "for every day use".

DerpHerder: but you seem to think the human time scale should be the measure of everything


Another strawman ... can you not even form an argument without putting words into your opponents mouths?? It is all about the evidence and the current evidence says very clearly that natural forces are not strong enough to cause the current rate of warming we see now.

I love how you think the science that you're quoting about the climate thousands of years ago is 100% accurate but the science that is happening now is "just a theory". Pathetic hypocrite.
 
2012-11-14 01:02:48 AM

Farking Canuck: Again, wrong. It is your use of the word 'theory' as if it means speculation that I object to ... typical of people ignorant of science. To reach a point of "scientific theory" the idea has to be heavily supported by evidence and has had to survive challenges. The use of the expression "just a theory" for a scientific theory is a sign of ignorance.


Yes, all the models are accurately predicting future trends as well as accurately representing the past trends we know about, right? And there are falsifiable, testable predictions we can all test via experiments in the laboratory, right? Hint: that's what it takes to move something from theory to fact. If only we had some of those things, you might have a point.
 
2012-11-14 02:51:37 AM

Farking Canuck: Another strawman ... can you not even form an argument without putting words into your opponents mouths?? It is all about the evidence and the current evidence says very clearly that natural forces are not strong enough to cause the current rate of warming we see now.

I love how you think the science that you're quoting about the climate thousands of years ago is 100% accurate but the science that is happening now is "just a theory". Pathetic hypocrite.


This sums up why you aren't a scientist and how ignorant and blinded by "science" you are. What your talking about isn't testable its called extrapolation/modeling. That is it is a future projection based on current trend. Further the science I'm talking about goes back about 200 million years in the fossil record not mere thousands (you truly do think on a human time scale thanks for proving my point) it is also in the past (i.e. has happened AKA FACT), and testable. You don't even seem to comprehend the time scales I'm talking about let alone know anything about them so why don't you stop talking out of your ass and study up. I love how you called me a climate denier when you are dismissing good scientific data and not even willing to entertain the thought of anything different than what you believe. A good scientist is always open to discussing and review of his work. Further to dismiss this data as possibly flawed or in some way manufactured is not scientific without evidence to support your claims. Most of the data and source your quoting use the same methods of testing as do mine, but mine have large data pools then yours so your shooting yourself in the foot (which happens to be located in your mouth). This is even after I admitted that I do recognize the fact that humans do play a role in climate change and or the environment as a whole. You also have put words in the mouths of everyone you've quoted in this thread so its a moot point. You sir are acting like a buffoon and continue to contradict yourself and display your lack of scientific understanding or method if you were a scientist you probably be a meteorologist, and lets hope in this fantasy (for the sake of humanity) you lived in Hawaii so there would be nothing for you to do.
 
Displayed 50 of 111 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report