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  
•       •       •

37674 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2012 at 3:50 PM (2 years 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 04:18:36 PM  
Okay warmers! If fossil fuels are making the earth hotter, what's making it warmer on Mars?
 
2012-12-11 04:19:06 PM  
img.timeinc.net
 
2012-12-11 04:19:11 PM  

Thunderpipes: Endive Wombat: RobertBruce: And before 1.3 million years ago we were warmer for a long long time. Sure we're changing. It's the "human caused" that is bullshiat.

The only thing that I have read on this that makes the most sense to even the hardest skeptic is that the Earth can handle only so much CO2 before shiat starts to change, and that humans, while only contributing a tiny, tiny amount may be the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back"

It has happened in the past, will again. The Earth is perfectly capable of responding to CO2. We have had mega greenhouse periods in the past you know, we did not just turn in to Venus.


exactly! The earth will go on just fine.
When we're gone God will probably create a new kind of life that can thrive in the new environment.
People just get hung-up on trying to preserve human civilization.
 
2012-12-11 04:19:27 PM  
Spanky_McFarksalot:

Not that I think man-made climate change is a lie, I do think we are screwing up the climate, but...science has agreed overwhelmingly on topics and theories in the past, only to be proven wrong later.

everyone agreeing doesn't equal being right.

/again, I am not a denier.


Well, there have been reasons for people to be wrong in the past. Columbus couldn't see the world from space, so perhaps he could doubt the world was spherical... a lot...

But we're actually at a point where we understand both the observations and how to interpret them better.

We've been working on the observational problem for a long time. It's been important to military sorts all over the world, and they keep good records. Scientists have been doing doubly so for the last 150+ years.

When you subtract out everything we understand of "natural cycles" including yes, the Sun, the Milankovich Cycles, Vulcanism, etcetera.... Whatever some dumbass claims scientists never figured in, there's still a discrepancy. That would be the part that we're doing that corresponds with burning more fossil fuels in a century than it took in tens of millennium to lay down in the first place.
 
2012-12-11 04:20:07 PM  
olddinosaur: Okay warmers! If fossil fuels are making the earth hotter, what's making it warmer on Mars?



--------------------


Hey, a scientist has showed up to help us all understand this.
 
2012-12-11 04:20:29 PM  

fiver5: OK fine you win, climate change is real.

So lets all give more money to the government.


transitionculture.org
 
2012-12-11 04:20:32 PM  
1) even in global dimmings heyday, a plurality of papers predicted that any cooling would be temporary, eventually outweighed by co2 driven warming.

2) even the ones wrongly claiming we would aggravate natural cooling trends and start an ice age weren't wholly wrong, it is an observable phenomenon. For a cool example check out the temperature data for the week of 9/11 when all the planes were grounded.
 
2012-12-11 04:20:45 PM  

sweetmelissa31: 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.


I don't think that people have a real problem with cutting emissions, the problem is cutting whatever services that are involved in creating those emissions. I wish the US had more wind/solar/tidal/geothermal power available to help offset current needs.

Find me something that i can run my car off of that is economical to use and i'll use it.

Hydrogen is the perfect fuel, but we can't find a way to get it without burning a bunch of fossil fuels currently.
 
2012-12-11 04:20:55 PM  

pastorkius: Bullshiat Time Magazine cover is bullshiat.

Here is the real one:
[i.imgur.com image 296x392]
Here's the source


Whoops you beat me to it.
 
2012-12-11 04:21:05 PM  

Oznog: LOL THIS. Because I'm over 40. I remember in elementary school they taught that science showed we were going to freeze in an ice age caused by pollution. It was scientific fact, at the time.


In fact, it was not scientific fact at the time, which you can see by looking at the scientific papers published on the subject from that time.

P.S. The "coming ice age" TIME cover is fake.
 
2012-12-11 04:21:52 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Joe Blowme: Oh,... its just a consensus graph, i thought it might have actual facts and science attached.


------------------


The graph represents the science that is out there, you deliberately obtuse twit.

Haven't you figured out that nobody believes you people any more? Our President isn't getting any whiter and the science isn't going away. But enjoy tilting at your windmills and helping the GOP implode.


What you mean.... YOU PEOPLE? farking racist bastard.
And the graph is made up dude. It is only stating how many articles pro got published and how many con got published. I was unawared the scientific method tells us to stop asking questions once we had a consensus and publication, you would have gotten along great with the flat earthers and the church at the time.
 
2012-12-11 04:22:09 PM  
I don't doubt that the climate is changing, i simply doubt that we fully understand why. We only have a few hundred years of recorded history, and even less of that directly pertains to the environment, The rest is supposition based off of geological and anthropological studies. And all of this is meant to make us think we know what is normal in the lifespan of a planet?

I cant help but feel that this is like looking at one month in the life of a 14 year old to try and determine what its entire history was and will be, as well as why.

That doesn't mean that the concerns of environmentalists are wrong, if anything they are good ideas for their own sake. It just means, in my mind, that we aren't able to truly say there is a direct correlation between some things.
 
2012-12-11 04:22:45 PM  

Oznog: SlothB77: [thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]

[thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]

LOL THIS. Because I'm over 40. I remember in elementary school they taught that science showed we were going to freeze in an ice age caused by pollution. It was scientific fact, at the time.



I'm well over 40 myself and if I recall correctly even back then scientist were crying BS on global cooling. There were a few fringe scientist that were largely discrediteded based upon peer review that were claiming new ice age. The press loved it as it was sensationalism and ran with it.
 
2012-12-11 04:23:06 PM  

olddinosaur: Okay warmers! If fossil fuels are making the earth hotter, what's making it warmer on Mars?


Short answer: It's probably not warming on Mars.
 
2012-12-11 04:23:20 PM  
Climate change, Texas style:

If you don't like the weather, wait ten minutes.
 
2012-12-11 04:23:23 PM  

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


You know how I know you don't know any scientist? They are the most contentious and skeptical people you will ever meet. All but the worst ones are skeptical of anything that goes against their experience, which is why they insist on peer review. The process can be brutal and not for the thin-skinned.
 
2012-12-11 04:24:31 PM  
My neocon friend, who, at times, I barely resist slapping in the back of the head, is convinced that scientists are making up global warming so they can get their sweet, sweet hands on some of that grant money. He apparently believes that grant money comes in massive blocks and that a scientist uses it not for research, but to buy himself nice things. He told me once that he wanted to be a scientist so he could use the grant money to buy himself a bigger house.
 
2012-12-11 04:24:39 PM  

olddinosaur: Okay warmers! If fossil fuels are making the earth hotter, what's making it warmer on Mars?


Large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, the same gas predominately released from the burning of fossil fuels here on Earth?
 
2012-12-11 04:25:17 PM  

Chigau: I don't doubt that the climate is changing, i simply doubt that we fully understand why. We only have a few hundred years of recorded history, and even less of that directly pertains to the environment, The rest is supposition based off of geological and anthropological studies. And all of this is meant to make us think we know what is normal in the lifespan of a planet?

I cant help but feel that this is like looking at one month in the life of a 14 year old to try and determine what its entire history was and will be, as well as why.

That doesn't mean that the concerns of environmentalists are wrong, if anything they are good ideas for their own sake. It just means, in my mind, that we aren't able to truly say there is a direct correlation between some things.



You're bringing up an important point, but be aware that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on simple correlation, but instead understanding of the underlying mechanisms and processes.
 
2012-12-11 04:25:42 PM  

Surly U. Jest: pastorkius: Bullshiat Time Magazine cover is bullshiat.

Here is the real one:
[i.imgur.com image 296x392]
Here's the source

Whoops you beat me to it.


Nah, it bears repeating, that image crops up every GW thread. Especially since it's such a lazy shop that they didn't even try to make it look like an actual copy of Time from the '70s - a truly unforgivable sin.
 
2012-12-11 04:25:50 PM  
Step right up and get your denier arguments invalidated. Link
 
2012-12-11 04:26:17 PM  
olddinosaur:

Okay warmers! If fossil fuels are making the earth hotter, what's making it warmer on Mars?

The same process that's leading to it's cooling down since you read that talking point, namely aphelion?

Seriously... Have you ever researched anything you say before deciding "Yeah! The world must hear my unrehearsed wisdom!" THEY MUST KNOW WHAT I READ FROM A RE:RE:RE:! 

Stop that.
 
2012-12-11 04:26:38 PM  
So you think reason and logic will sway a climate change doubter? Subby, you are adorable!
 
2012-12-11 04:26:56 PM  
Joe Blowme: And the graph is made up dude. It is only stating how many articles pro got published and how many con got published. I was unawared the scientific method tells us to stop asking questions once we had a consensus and publication, you would have gotten along great with the flat earthers and the church at the time.

---------------


I wonder how many scientists are out there still trying to prove the earth is flat? I wonder why?


PS - Our President, still black. Enjoy.
 
2012-12-11 04:26:56 PM  

Chigau: I don't doubt that the climate is changing, i simply doubt that we fully understand why. We only have a few hundred years of recorded history, and even less of that directly pertains to the environment, The rest is supposition based off of geological and anthropological studies. And all of this is meant to make us think we know what is normal in the lifespan of a planet?

I cant help but feel that this is like looking at one month in the life of a 14 year old to try and determine what its entire history was and will be, as well as why.

That doesn't mean that the concerns of environmentalists are wrong, if anything they are good ideas for their own sake. It just means, in my mind, that we aren't able to truly say there is a direct correlation between some things.


The system is beyond our understanding, so lets cross our fingers and add a couple gigatons of co2 to it.
 
2012-12-11 04:27:08 PM  
Climate changes, this is a fact. Warmer, colder, and everything in between. As it has for billions of years. Not many people argue against this point.

The argument comes in when you start discussing what effect mankind is or is not having.
 
2012-12-11 04:27:30 PM  

Oznog: SlothB77: [thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]

[thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]

LOL THIS. Because I'm over 40. I remember in elementary school they taught that science showed we were going to freeze in an ice age caused by pollution. It was scientific fact, at the time.


It WAS NOT a "scientific fact" at the time. It was a study put forward by two scientists using very narrow time period for their data, and WAS NOT accepted by the majority of the scientific community. The majority of studies at that time, that had far less data to work from, still felt that we were moving toward global warning.

Thanks 1970s TIME cover, for helping the DERP along.....

/facepalm
 
2012-12-11 04:28:10 PM  
CheatCommando:
// How's that Old White People's Party thing workin for ya?


Why so racist?
 
2012-12-11 04:29:42 PM  

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

You know how I know you don't know any scientist? They are the most contentious and skeptical people you will ever meet. All but the worst ones are skeptical of anything that goes against their experience, which is why they insist on peer review. The process can be brutal and not for the thin-skinned.


How come neither of you don't know what the plural of the word "scientist" is?
 
2012-12-11 04:30:24 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Chigau: I don't doubt that the climate is changing, ......

That doesn't mean that the concerns of environmentalists are wrong, if anything they are good ideas for their own sake. It just means, in my mind, that we aren't able to truly say there is a direct correlation between some things.

The system is beyond our understanding, so lets cross our fingers and add a couple gigatons of co2 to it.


3/10
fail
 
2012-12-11 04:30:33 PM  
And then there's NASA's own GISS data from 2002-2012

img580.imageshack.us

For those people who are interested in what the, you know, actual scientific data say. 

Boy, look at it warm.
 
2012-12-11 04:32:18 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Joe Blowme: And the graph is made up dude. It is only stating how many articles pro got published and how many con got published. I was unawared the scientific method tells us to stop asking questions once we had a consensus and publication, you would have gotten along great with the flat earthers and the church at the time.

---------------


I wonder how many scientists are out there still trying to prove the earth is flat? I wonder why?


PS - Our President, still black. Enjoy.


You have to wonder? That explains alot about you. See, most scientist use teh scientific method which means they will keep questioning and testing and not just call it a day when they reach CONSENSUS. Now, get back in your moms basement, she will have your mac and cheese ready for you soon.
 
2012-12-11 04:32:29 PM  
May saw the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

Link
 
2012-12-11 04:32:50 PM  
The mass acceptance of a subject does not constitute that belief as factual.

/kudos for the flame thread
 
2012-12-11 04:33:03 PM  

vodka: The argument comes in when you start discussing what effect mankind is or is not having.


The graph FTA shows there is not much argument there either, at least among those with the best understanding of the science involved.
 
2012-12-11 04:33:27 PM  
SevenizGud: For those people who are interested in what the, you know, actual scientific data say. Boy, look at it warm.

------------------

Nothing like a GW thread to summon the Army of Stupid.
 
2012-12-11 04:33:27 PM  
"24 Reject Global Warming"

It should read "Percent of the population that fully understand the basic science and facts".
 
2012-12-11 04:33:57 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
Here's a nice .gif of the fake TIME cover.
Those using the fake should feel free to admit to being a complete buffoon.

/hot .gif
 
2012-12-11 04:34:03 PM  

SevenizGud: And then there's NASA's own GISS data from 2002-2012

[img580.imageshack.us image 748x379]

For those people who are interested in what the, you know, actual scientific data say. 

Boy, look at it warm.


Here's a longer time range.

data.giss.nasa.gov

You would have sucked at calculus.
 
2012-12-11 04:34:17 PM  

tobcc: 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)


Um... no. We have climate data going back tens of thousands of years, in the form of tree rings, bubbles in antarctic ice, fossils...

We have written records going back several hundred years. So do yourself a favor and read up on the subject, or do the rest of us a favor and STFU.
 
2012-12-11 04:34:24 PM  

olddinosaur: Okay warmers! If fossil fuels are making the earth hotter, what's making it warmer on Mars?


Actually, Mars is very cold. It also has 0.6% of the atmospheric pressure of earth. Averige-ish of -60 degrees F.

Venus's atmosphere on the other hand is over 900% the density of Earth's and 800 degrees F hotter.

STILL NEITHER OF THESE THINGS PROVE CAUSE AND EFFECT. You see, there's these things called variables some people don't think matter...

scene.asu.edu 

/Standard method of scientific learning
 
2012-12-11 04:34:27 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: olddinosaur: Okay warmers! If fossil fuels are making the earth hotter, what's making it warmer on Mars?

Short answer: It's probably not warming on Mars.


If I recall the warming on Mars was due to bad data, but don't quote me on that one.
 
2012-12-11 04:35:06 PM  

Chigau: I don't doubt that the climate is changing, i simply doubt that we fully understand why. We only have a few hundred years of recorded history, and even less of that directly pertains to the environment, The rest is supposition based off of geological and anthropological studies. And all of this is meant to make us think we know what is normal in the lifespan of a planet?

I cant help but feel that this is like looking at one month in the life of a 14 year old to try and determine what its entire history was and will be, as well as why.

That doesn't mean that the concerns of environmentalists are wrong, if anything they are good ideas for their own sake. It just means, in my mind, that we aren't able to truly say there is a direct correlation between some things.


Look, I'm not saying internal combustion is impossible, I'm just saying that we simply do not fully understand how it happens. I just find it really hard to believe that we could have several chambers simultaneously taking a mixture of air and fuel, compressing this mixture, subsequently igniting it to produce power. I have seen what 20 gallons of gasoline can do and it doesn't just produce power, it is deadly. I just don't think we can look at all of these cars driving around and just assume that this is a safe and practical means of transportation. They are essentially rolling bombs. I think we should just wait until all of the science is in on this before we all rush out to dealerships and start purchasing these automobiles. And when we do get to this point, there better not be ANYONE telling me that the exhaust produced by these engines negatively affect air quality, carbon levels, etc. My mind will be made up at that point.

Things I do not understand are impossible, but once I understand it, NOTHING will change my mind.

/taking foot off of the sarcasm pedal
 
2012-12-11 04:35:15 PM  

Rent Party: Endive Wombat: BigBurrito: Endive Wombat: All I am going to add to this is that my understanding about those who question global warming is this (and let's be honest, it is a major sticking point): What is its cause and what, if anything can we do about it?

I believe many people have stopped worrying about the cause, and very, very few holdouts cling to denying its existence.

The consequences of global warming are still very much up for debate, even within the sciences. What happens, when does it happen, and what may change the outcome? Hell, if we have a very large Volcanic eruption the ash will cool the atmosphere. T

I think that is where the former deniers are moving to. Better to debate future consequences, that can be neither proved or disproved. Kind of like conspiracy theories, it has the ability to grab peoples imaginations. That is a good and fun thing and has the benefit of enabling research to proceed without as much political interference.


Well, several hundred years ago, the Earth was warmed (Medieval Warm Period) and cooled (Little Ice Age) with what I think most people will agree as zero influence by humans as we were not contributing much to the total Earth's CO2 output at that point in time. 

Again, with what little I have studied, I am more apt to believe that sun spots and other Earthly/Nature based factors contribute 98% of global warming. While I am not denying the fact that we more than likely contribute somewhat to Global Warming...I just suspect that there are other, much larger factors at play that try as we may, we will never be able to overcome and will have almost zero ability to do anything about it.

You are talking about a smaller change in temperatures over a much longer period of time.

[whyfiles.org image 510x515]

That is a brilliant chart, as it shows not only the current trends, which tie quite nicely to the industrial revolution, but also the medieval warming periods you are so eager to hang your hat on.

No doubt you can ...


.
If I'm reading that correctly, about 0.6 degrees. And data pre 1989 is open to interpretation for a number of reasons, so could be more or less than half a degree, could be 50 degrees for all we know.
 
2012-12-11 04:35:38 PM  

Chigau: I don't doubt that the climate is changing, i simply doubt that we fully understand why. We only have a few hundred years of recorded history, and even less of that directly pertains to the environment, The rest is supposition based off of geological and anthropological studies. And all of this is meant to make us think we know what is normal in the lifespan of a planet?


Attribution of the current climate change to humans isn't primarily based on comparing what's happening now to what's "normal". It's based on a physical analysis of the sources of warming within the climate system. We can see, from direct observation, that the heat isn't coming from the Sun, the oceans, etc. This, combined with a physical understanding of the greenhouse effect, and some of its indirect consequences (spectral changes in the top-of-atmosphere radiation flux, stratospheric cooling, etc.), is what leads to an attribution to humans.
 
2012-12-11 04:36:03 PM  
FTA:" when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they're doing isn't science"

HAHahhahahahahah climate gate
 
2012-12-11 04:36:05 PM  
Al Gore choose carbon trading for some sound financial reasons. 1. long term trends show an increase in co2 levels the ice record shows a long term increase in levels followed by a big drop then long term rise again . 2. Plants live on co2 giving a built in regulator to the level . 3. We are in the warming phase after the ice age . So you set up a market to trade a natural substance that 7 billion people on the planet generate and cause animals they eat to generate . Fly around in a 767 and tell every one to cut back their use , mean while take a percentage of the action and Profit .
Nixon gave us the EPA most hatted agency next to IRS but we have clean air and water for the most part.
Why is there not a push for more shade trees to consume the co2 and give us o2 or is that a too too proactive fix that people can do with out the guberment.
 
2012-12-11 04:36:12 PM  
alabasterblack:

Oznog: SlothB77: [thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]

[thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]

LOL THIS. Because I'm over 40. I remember in elementary school they taught that science showed we were going to freeze in an ice age caused by pollution. It was scientific fact, at the time.

It WAS NOT a "scientific fact" at the time. It was a study put forward by two scientists using very narrow time period for their data, and WAS NOT accepted by the majority of the scientific community. The majority of studies at that time, that had far less data to work from, still felt that we were moving toward global warning.

Thanks 1970s TIME cover, for helping the DERP along.....

/facepalm


Worst part about this, pretty much the saddest.... he's lying *and knows he's doing it.*. There was no time in his life where he was freaked out about some coming ice age claimed by pop sci magazines. I grew up in the 60's and 70's and if we're trading anecdotes, no, sorry. That wasn't an issue.

It's a convenient point for people to misrepresemember. "OH HELL YEAH! THEM SCIENTESTS SAID WE WERE ALL GONNA FREEZE" is the way they remember it after an evening of AM radio, and It becomes the new reality.
 
2012-12-11 04:36:38 PM  
Every scientific paper in the past 20 years has used the same measurement for the speed of light.

Talk about groupthink. Scientists can't handle my theories. The Man is holding me down dogs.
 
2012-12-11 04:36:41 PM  
Joe Blowme: I wonder how many scientists are out there still trying to prove the earth is flat? I wonder why?PS - Our President, still black. Enjoy.


You have to wonder? That explains alot about you. See, most scientist use teh scientific method which means they will keep questioning and testing and not just call it a day when they reach CONSENSUS. Now, get back in your moms basement, she will have your mac and cheese ready for you soon.



-----------

You're the one who threw the Flat Earth out there. So, answer the question. If, as you say, scientists keep questioning and testing, why aren't they still trying to prove the earth is flat?

Yeah, thought so.
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report