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.

(Slate)   Here it is, the only pie graph you'll ever need to deal with the next climate-change-denying idiot   (slate.com) divider line 954
    More: Spiffy, pie charts, climate change  
•       •       •

37670 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2012 at 3:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-11 12:43:36 PM
All that shows is scientist are worse than the average population when it comes to group-think.
 
2012-12-11 12:49:14 PM
Oh good, I'm glad this was greened, even if it wasn't my headline.
 
2012-12-11 12:54:04 PM
OK fine you win, climate change is real.

So lets all give more money to the government.
 
2012-12-11 12:54:58 PM
There's also this simple little fact: if you were born after February 1985, you have never experienced a month where the global temperature was below the 20th century average. One month proves nothing. One year proves nothing. 332 months in a row? Only an ignorant fool would claim temperatures are not rising when confronted with the near statistical impossibility of that fact.
 
2012-12-11 12:55:06 PM
I'll always have, in the back of my mind, the fact that some scientists faked their data a couple years ago.

I'm not an idiot, it just made me skeptical.
 
2012-12-11 12:59:48 PM

GAT_00: There's also this simple little fact: if you were born after February 1985, you have never experienced a month where the global temperature was below the 20th century average. One month proves nothing. One year proves nothing. 332 months in a row? Only an ignorant fool would claim temperatures are not rising when confronted with the near statistical impossibility of that fact.

Dont get me wrong, I think we as humans have changed the climate, but.. we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

//dont worry, I think we need to get off fosell fuels, and have clean air too
/// am a hippy (not really a dirty one though)
 
2012-12-11 12:59:48 PM
You mean only 99.8% of the peer-reviewed articles on Global Warming support the lies?

And you Warmies claim to have a scientific concensus. HA!
 
2012-12-11 01:00:00 PM
Well I'm convinced.
 
2012-12-11 01:02:10 PM

tobcc: Dont get me wrong, I think we as humans have changed the climate, but.. we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.


Which is why I said versus the 20th century average.
 
2012-12-11 01:02:47 PM
www.desmogblog.com


/hot like, well, you know
 
2012-12-11 01:02:51 PM
Hurricane Sandy, a category 1 hurricane, managed to top FEMAs 1983 projected 500-year flooding mark, which was rather sobering.
 
Whether it's the magic hippo or everyone peeing while swimming, sea level is much much higher than it was 100 or even 20 years ago.
 
2012-12-11 01:06:06 PM

tobcc: Dont get me wrong, I think we as humans have changed the climate, but.. we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.


I have a clock that is 80 years old, but I don't need to observe it for a decade to determine its periodicity and any variations thereof.
 
2012-12-11 01:06:22 PM
Consensus =/= science. Still.
 
2012-12-11 01:08:14 PM
whyfiles.org
 
2012-12-11 01:08:21 PM

BravadoGT: Consensus =/= science. Still.


Uh. What about the scientific method and rigor is so f*cking hard to understand?
 
2012-12-11 01:08:49 PM
Almost all of the pie is gone!
 
2012-12-11 01:09:32 PM

BravadoGT: Consensus =/= science. Still.


Reviewing a peer's work and challenging it and failing to reverse the finding is.
 
2012-12-11 01:10:30 PM

tobcc: Dont get me wrong, I think we as humans have changed the climate, but.. we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.


This is wrong. We have data going back much, much, much further:

Link

Scroll down to temperature and CO2 graph.

Of course understanding how we can reconstruct temperature data requires understanding a bit more science, therefore many will dismiss it. It is interesting that they can reconstruct CO2 levels, and dust levels as well.
 
2012-12-11 01:13:36 PM
Science thrives on dissenting ideas, it grows and learns from them.

While that may be true of science, it is not always true of scientists.
 
2012-12-11 01:15:41 PM

tobcc: we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.


WRONG!! Ice core samples, we have data going back 800,000 years
 
2012-12-11 01:16:06 PM

Lucky LaRue: All that shows is scientist are worse than the average population when it comes to group-think.



Sure, Jim Inhofe.
 
2012-12-11 01:16:16 PM

BigBurrito: tobcc: Dont get me wrong, I think we as humans have changed the climate, but.. we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

This is wrong. We have data going back much, much, much further:

Link

Scroll down to temperature and CO2 graph.

Of course understanding how we can reconstruct temperature data requires understanding a bit more science, therefore many will dismiss it. It is interesting that they can reconstruct CO2 levels, and dust levels as well.


//shakes fist and leaves
 
2012-12-11 01:18:38 PM

Mangoose: While that may be true of science, it is not always true of scientists.


The Scientist is not so important to Science. Science moves forward. Sometimes a Scientist can move Science forward faster (Newton, Einstein, many others) but it moves regardless of the Scientist. It builds slowly, sometimes, rarely, very quickly.

Perhaps that is too conceptual.
 
2012-12-11 01:20:31 PM

zedster: tobcc: we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

WRONG!! Ice core samples, we have data going back 800,000 years


and the the formation of rocks helps us know about carbon and temperature levels as well. we get back much further than 800k with that.
 
2012-12-11 01:21:45 PM
Book of Genesis:

9:11 I will establish my covenant with you; neither will all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the flood; neither will there any more be a flood to destroy the earth."

9:12 God said, "This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

9:13 I set my rainbow in the cloud, and it will be for a sign of a covenant between me and the earth.

9:14 It will happen, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow will be seen in the cloud,

9:15 and I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh, and the waters will no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

9:16 The rainbow will be in the cloud. I will look at it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth."

9:17 God said to Noah, "This is the token of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth."


I'll take God's solemn word over any egghead's any day.
 
2012-12-11 01:22:27 PM
Interesting how the vast majority of people that reject the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change are willing to believe claims made in texts that are mellinia old without any skepticism....
 
2012-12-11 01:22:57 PM

rotsky: I'm not an idiot, it just made me skeptical.


Are you skeptical about whether vaccines really don't cause autism too? I mean, autism rates have gone up, and vaccination rates have gone up. There are some scientists who think that vaccines cause autism. I'm just asking questions.
 
2012-12-11 01:23:31 PM

doyner: Interesting how the vast majority of people that reject the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change are willing to believe claims made in texts that are mellinia old without any skepticism....


Faith in God has sustained us much longer than science has.
 
2012-12-11 01:23:59 PM
Allow me to retort:

Al Gore. LOL it's snowing! Carbon credits scam. Leaked emails. Solyndra. Libtards.
 
2012-12-11 01:24:25 PM

Diogenes: doyner: Interesting how the vast majority of people that reject the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change are willing to believe claims made in texts that are mellinia old without any skepticism....

Faith in God has sustained us much longer than science has.


You're not very good at this trolling thing.
 
2012-12-11 01:25:08 PM

Kazan: and the the formation of rocks helps us know about carbon and temperature levels as well. we get back much further than 800k with that.


Just for my own curiosity,I suspect that depends on the type of rock, no?

Any links? Why yes, I am too lazy to google it.
 
2012-12-11 01:27:31 PM
I don't know how much humans are responsible for climate change, and I don't know if that really even matters anyway. The fact is, the climate is changing, and I suppose we can sit around and bicker about it, or, more productively, we can maybe try to prepare ourselves for it.
 
2012-12-11 01:29:14 PM
Get with the times, people!

The new line of derpitude is that global warming exists, but we can't definitively prove that all of it is man-made so we shouldn't do anything about it.
 
2012-12-11 01:31:11 PM

Diogenes: Faith in God has sustained us much longer than science has.


Adaptability of our species has maintained us much, much longer still. God is a newcomer, a powerful concept, but very new and occupying only the briefest moment in time. God does not exist without common language. Common language is still fairly new within our species.
 
2012-12-11 01:36:08 PM
Journey with me, subby, back to the early 1600s. You remember studying the 1600s, right? It was a great time of science and learning, but it it was also a great time of scientific misunderstanding. The best of times and the worst of times, if you want to cite a book that's about to be a very, very big Christmas movie. If you're into that sort of gay musical thing, I mean. I'm certainly not, but whatever floats your boat.

But anyway, I distract myself. My point is that, back in the 1600s, everybody -- and I do mean everybody, every peasant and every scientist and every priest, every-freakin'-body--believed in something called Heliocentrism. Which basically was the belief that everything rotated around the sun. No, wait, that's the way it really is. It's the belief that everything rotates around the earth.

No, wait, I was right the first time. Heliocentrism is the belief that everything rotates around the sun, but it's not what everybody believed. Everybody believed that second thing I wrote, about stuff orbiting earth. I don't know what they called it. Earth-centrism maybe. Or Terra-centrism, scientists like using the word "Terra" instead of "Earth" because it's Latin and sounds fancier. But, so, everybody believed in Terra-centrism, and then along comes this guy named Galileo, had the gumption, the guts, the stones to stand up to the world and say NO. The universe is HELIOCENTRIC. Everything orbits the SUN, not the other way around!

Well, as you might imagine, people were pissed off. Nobody likes their entire universe being questioned. Galileo (his friends called him Leo) was imprisoned in his own house, which doesn't sound to bad until you realize they didn't have electricity back then. No TV, no radio, no internet. Imagine that. He was imprisoned for years. But he stuck to his guns. And, eventually, everybody realized that he was right, after all. The sun IS at the center of the universe.

So think about it. If you were to take your fancy little pie chart and publish it back in the 1600s, what would it look like? The red sliver, which represents plucky ol' Leo, would barely be there at all. And the massive black chunk would represent everybody else who thought he was wrong. AND HE WASN'T WRONG. So what's that tell?

Remember -- being correct means having the courage to stand up to the world when you know you're in the right. It means being the lone voice in a tempest, the single drop in an ocean. Learn from Leo, who was immortalized centuries later in Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, which tells the story of his struggle to shine truth into the world. I find him absolutely inspiring.
 
2012-12-11 01:36:08 PM

Snarfangel: Almost all of the pie is gone!


Or, someone ate one really, really thin slice of it.
 
2012-12-11 01:36:51 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Diogenes: doyner: Interesting how the vast majority of people that reject the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change are willing to believe claims made in texts that are mellinia old without any skepticism....

Faith in God has sustained us much longer than science has.

You're not very good at this trolling thing.


My heart's just not in it.
 
2012-12-11 01:37:45 PM

BigBurrito: Kazan: and the the formation of rocks helps us know about carbon and temperature levels as well. we get back much further than 800k with that.

Just for my own curiosity,I suspect that depends on the type of rock, no?

Any links? Why yes, I am too lazy to google it.


yes .. limestone deposition, etc. i don't think i can find a short handy article to explain it.
 
2012-12-11 01:39:52 PM

Pocket Ninja: The best of times and the worst of times, if you want to cite a book that's about to be a very, very big Christmas movie


Spectacular.
 
2012-12-11 01:41:23 PM

Vodka Zombie: I don't know how much humans are responsible for climate change, and I don't know if that really even matters anyway.


It does matter. If you don't think that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere causes the earth to get warmer, you won't think there's any reason to stop emitting them.
 
2012-12-11 01:42:48 PM

Diogenes: cameroncrazy1984: Diogenes: doyner: Interesting how the vast majority of people that reject the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change are willing to believe claims made in texts that are mellinia old without any skepticism....

Faith in God has sustained us much longer than science has.

You're not very good at this trolling thing.

My heart's just not in it.


Buck up, little camper. You can do it!
 
2012-12-11 01:43:20 PM

Diogenes: doyner: Interesting how the vast majority of people that reject the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change are willing to believe claims made in texts that are mellinia old without any skepticism....

Faith in God has sustained us much longer than science has.


You're right. Science advances rather than sustains ;)
 
2012-12-11 01:43:56 PM

Relatively Obscure: Diogenes: doyner: Interesting how the vast majority of people that reject the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change are willing to believe claims made in texts that are mellinia old without any skepticism....

Faith in God has sustained us much longer than science has.

You're right. Science advances rather than sustains ;)


Oh, Snap!
 
2012-12-11 01:48:12 PM

Pocket Ninja: Journey with me, subby, back to the early 1600s...



imageshack.us

Some things just get better with age...
 
2012-12-11 01:48:37 PM
Has anyone ever said the planet wasn't changing?! Any dumb enough to think that the planet was always this way and will always be this way?!

If there is throw them down a canyon and while they fall to their death yell "there use to be ice here!".
 
2012-12-11 01:50:08 PM

brap: Hurricane Sandy, a category 1 hurricane, managed to top FEMAs 1983 projected 500-year flooding mark, which was rather sobering.

Whether it's the magic hippo or everyone peeing while swimming, sea level is much much higher than it was 100 or even 20 years ago.



The surge from Sandy wasn't really nearly as much about higher sea levels, but the shear size of the storm. Just nowhere for the surge to go but inland.
 
2012-12-11 01:50:45 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Has anyone ever said the planet wasn't changing?! Any dumb enough to think that the planet was always this way and will always be this way?!

If there is throw them down a canyon and while they fall to their death yell "there use to be ice here!".


Now this is some quality trolling!

Even included some spelling and grammatical errors to make it realistic.
 
2012-12-11 01:59:28 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Now this is some quality trolling!


I don't troll. I believe what I say and say what I believe. Now and then I put it in a way that makes me laugh.

cameroncrazy1984: Even included some spelling and grammatical errors to make it realistic.

 

I really wish I could say that I do those on purpose......

Correcting my spelling and grammar would be a full time job for anyone. At the best of times it sucks and at the worst of time (farking) it's just horrible.

Hey, no one is perfect
 
2012-12-11 02:01:48 PM
Over 99% of scientists agree that putting a plastic bag over your head and tying it shut with a rubber band is unhealthy. I recommend to climate-change deniers a dose of skepticism there, too.
 
2012-12-11 02:05:24 PM
You won't get funding from the USA to write papers arguing against global warming, no matter how sound your science is. And if you need funding ...
 
Displayed 50 of 954 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report