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 04:55:06 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Except for that study that was funded by the Koch brothers to try to disprove global warming


GAT_00: The Koch Brothers paid for a study to prove that global warming wasn't real.


citation needed on the bolded part
 
2012-12-11 04:55:24 PM  
I personally am looking forward to Time Magazine to help us out of this wave of Satanic Worship that they predicted about the time their sales drooped.

webringjustice.files.wordpress.com

Yes, let's talk about magazine hyperbole vs. science in the 70's. It will do your case wonders.
 
2012-12-11 04:55:32 PM  

Chigau: SevenizGud: Dusk-You-n-Me: 99/100 climatologists tell you our actions are responsible for the accelerated warming of the earth

Accelerated warming? There isn't any warming AT ALL.

[img580.imageshack.us image 748x379]

Even i know you need a larger sample size than that to be able to claim anything.


wow.. image fail

http://www.globalchange.gov/HighResImages/2-National-pg-27_right.jpg
 
2012-12-11 04:55:34 PM  

SlothB77: [thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]


Wow, you had to reach way back for that dead talking point, and you fell for a hoax image on top of it.

Congrats. Hey, you know that British chick hot killed herself over that radio prank? Well, you should be more humiliated than that. You know what to do.
 
2012-12-11 04:55:38 PM  

SevenizGud: cameroncrazy1984: Because 10 years is a great sample size when trying to prove global warming since the industrial revolution.

Which is why the sample size is 8,000+, the number of stations.


So, 8,000+ stations for 10 years proves that the globe hasn't been warming for the past 100-150?

Please proceed, governor.
 
2012-12-11 04:55:58 PM  
Guess I'll have to page Jon Snow.
 
2012-12-11 04:56:05 PM  
Here's a neat little experiment. Go to a nursing home and ask people what their opinion was about, say, civil rights protestors at the time. Were they for 'em, or agin 'em? Astonishingly, virtually everybody who was ever opposed in any way to the movement as a whole has died mysteriously in the meantime.

Sociologists do this kind of thing all the time. Obama polls at +2% on the day before the election, wins by +3%, and then a week later, amazingly, beats Romney by 15% in the "who did you vote for last week" poll. It works the other way, too. If you ask people who were old enough to vote in 1976, virtually none of them voted for Carter. Somebody get the ghost of Gerald Ford on the phone and tell him he's been retroactively elected!

Nobody ever rooted for O.J. Simpson. Penn State Football? Nah, I was never really a fan... I named all my sons "Joe" after Joe Rogan of Newsradio fame. And HELL NO, no American ever said that that Hitler guy was just what Germany needed to get back on its feet and we should let Europe take care of its own petty squabbles this time around.

The funny thing is, the people who do this aren't even really lying. The past just magically changes. And if you say, "well, I have you on film turning fire hoses on civil rights protestors," they'll shrug and say, "maybe I thought they'd appreciate being cooled down. Alabama summers are pretty hot, you know, and we didn't have air conditioning back then. Yes, that's right, I remember it now. They'd just gotten done frolicking with my friendly dogs."

Anyway, this is just a reminder for all the people letting themselves be drawn into arguments on this particular topic. You're not going to get the satisfaction of someone posting "ahh... I guess you're right" in response to your Epic Smackdown of Truth. And you're not even going to get the satisfaction of people coming around over time. They'll always have been there. "B-b-but we had HUGE fights about it!" "No way, man, I was sounding the alarm when you were still driving that gas-guzzling Prius you had. Remember? I voted for Romney, because he was a Republican, and Republicans were the first ones to take anthropogenic climate change seriously. *sigh* If only you'd listened..."
 
2012-12-11 04:56:20 PM  

hutchkc: The only time I truly remember global cooling being really raised was nuclear winter, but if that occurred there would be a few other issues to worry about.


There were two legitimate concerns that were tangled up in the media reporting at the time.

One is that geologists had started to realize that some climate changes in the glacial cycle were "abrupt", and this led to the possibility that the next ice age might come faster than expected. But they were still mostly thinking on thousand-year timescales.

The other is that climatologists had noticed that the planet was slightly cooling (which it really was), and atmospheric scientists had started to realize that air pollution (in particular, sulfate aerosols) might be responsible (by reflecting sunlight). If pollution continued to grow exponentially, this could cause a profound cooling. And they were right about this (although not exactly about the magnitude).

The thing is, humans reduced our sulfate emissions, and the human-driven global cooling went away. That is, the "prediction" didn't come to pass because humans did something about it. Somehow, skeptics don't reason by analogy to conclude that if humans clean up our CO2 emissions, the human-driven global warming will go away.

In any case, most scientists at the time thought the greenhouse effect would ultimately be the dominant factor, and the "impending ice age" was mostly a media-driven phenomenon.
 
2012-12-11 04:56:23 PM  

Joe Blowme: HAHahhahahahahah climate gate


HAHahhahahahahah, arrogant schmuck who can't be bothered to know that no data manipulation occurred, except in the minds of the easily-led.

Pay attention, dumbass!
 
2012-12-11 04:56:38 PM  

zedster: Nightsweat: The oldest remnants of civilization are about 6000 11000 years old

FTFY


I wasn't really thinking neolithic societies, more Egypt/Babylon/Sumeria, but OK. still pretty recent on the 800,000 year scale.
 
2012-12-11 04:57:00 PM  
Remember folks, those claiming that humans are not warming the planet are the same crowd of people that wants to stomp gays, burn atheists and return blacks to their rightful place as farm equipment.
 
2012-12-11 04:57:07 PM  

jigger: cameroncrazy1984: Except for that study that was funded by the Koch brothers to try to disprove global warming

GAT_00: The Koch Brothers paid for a study to prove that global warming wasn't real.

citation needed on the bolded part


The guy who ran the study was a skeptic. Until he did the study
 
2012-12-11 04:57:13 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: So, 8,000+ stations for 10 years proves that the globe hasn't been warming for the past 100-150?


Another tard who can't distinguish between "never warmed" and "currently warming".
 
2012-12-11 04:57:40 PM  
It's real, it's awesome so far, and there is no way in hell you're going to reverse it as more and more third world countries seek to industrialize.

You guys can keep bickering the small stuff while I short the snowboard market.
 
2012-12-11 04:57:43 PM  

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


This is why I love you so very, very much.
 
2012-12-11 04:58:37 PM  

Foxxinnia: Every scientific paper in the past 20 years has used the same measurement for the speed of light.


media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-11 04:58:40 PM  

sweetmelissa31: 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.


Is there a theory or theorum which could correlate rising populations with natural activity (such as climate change and disease in humans, especially STD's)? I can't think of one, but that seems to be what's happening.
 
2012-12-11 04:59:07 PM  

Xexi: The mass acceptance of a subject does not constitute that belief as factual.

/kudos for the flame thread


Then what does? How do you know what, if anything, is factual?
 
2012-12-11 04:59:12 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Remember folks, those claiming that humans are not warming the planet are the same crowd of people that wants to stomp gays, burn atheists and return blacks to their rightful place as farm equipment.


Remember folks, those claiming humans are warming the planet are the same crowd of people that murder and rape people.
 
2012-12-11 04:59:22 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Yeah, no shiat. We're still on the tail end of the last ice age, obviously we aren't done heating up yet.


Nice try. We reached peak interglacial temperatures about 8000 years ago and have been gradually cooling, on average, ever since. This also agrees with the Milankovitch orbital forcing, which is no longer in a "warming" phase.
 
2012-12-11 05:00:29 PM  
SevenizGud:

buck1138: One more time cause you clearly have a case of the stupids.

Another tard who can't distinguish the following from each other:

A. The earth NEVER warmed.

B. The earth is not PRESENTLY warming.

Ok. Is the Earth warming? We'll wait for your answer before asking the next question.
 
2012-12-11 05:00:46 PM  

OregonVet: buck1138: You would have sucked at calculus.

I love that completely made-up chart. I laugh each time.


Src. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

So Nasa totaly makes shiat up except between 2000 and 2012?
 
2012-12-11 05:00:48 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: turnerdude69: The Earth has been warming up long before people had anything to do with it...

[citation needed]

Because 99% of scientists disagree with this idea. And have proof to back it up. What do you have?


Geology?? There have been several ice ages and we are lucky enough to be in between the cycle...Pretty sure all scientist would agree with that...
 
2012-12-11 05:01:25 PM  

iheartscotch: Can we all just admit that graphs going back one hundred years are just as intellectually dishonest as charts going back ten years?

/ to draw meaningful conclusions on the climate; you need to consider data from thousands of years


No. That's not what detection and attribution of climate changes is primarily based on. See here. The existence of natural variability on millennial timescales is irrelevant to the question of whether that variability is acting now, which can be verified by observations now.
 
2012-12-11 05:01:25 PM  
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com 

Imma just leave this here
 
2012-12-11 05:01:33 PM  

SevenizGud: cameroncrazy1984: So, 8,000+ stations for 10 years proves that the globe hasn't been warming for the past 100-150?

Another tard who can't distinguish between "never warmed" and "currently warming".


Have you seen a graph of the past 100 years? There are several ten-year troughs in that graph

Look:

berkeleyearth.org 

That's a graph of four different global temperature measurements since 1800.

What was your argument again? Not currently warming? Care to adjust your conclusion now?
 
2012-12-11 05:02:09 PM  

turnerdude69: cameroncrazy1984: turnerdude69: The Earth has been warming up long before people had anything to do with it...

[citation needed]

Because 99% of scientists disagree with this idea. And have proof to back it up. What do you have?

Geology?? There have been several ice ages and we are lucky enough to be in between the cycle...Pretty sure all scientist would agree with that...


That chart would appear to prove you wrong. Geology has nothing to do with climate, by the way.
 
2012-12-11 05:02:59 PM  

maxheck: SevenizGud:

buck1138: One more time cause you clearly have a case of the stupids.

Another tard who can't distinguish the following from each other:

A. The earth NEVER warmed.

B. The earth is not PRESENTLY warming.

Ok. Is the Earth warming? We'll wait for your answer before asking the next question.


Are you asking about this exact moment? Is this like Zeno's paradox?
 
2012-12-11 05:03:55 PM  
Climate change happens naturally. No one is arguing that. People argue as to whether it is man made. The earth and heated and cooled many times. They dont teach that any more in school. Weird.
 
2012-12-11 05:04:10 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: 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.


If academic scientists don't get outside funding, they eventually lose their jobs. No, they're not swimming in money (well, some are through patents) but they get nothing, good day sir, if their funding dries up. Oh, and science funding and publishing can be quite political. Just sayin'.
 
2012-12-11 05:04:33 PM  

jjdaugh: People argue as to whether it is man made


Scientists don't argue whether it is man-made.
 
2012-12-11 05:04:54 PM  

nigeman:

I'll tell you why you're an idiot



You must be new here. That's not even trolling.
 
2012-12-11 05:05:35 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: turnerdude69: cameroncrazy1984: turnerdude69: The Earth has been warming up long before people had anything to do with it...

[citation needed]

Because 99% of scientists disagree with this idea. And have proof to back it up. What do you have?

Geology?? There have been several ice ages and we are lucky enough to be in between the cycle...Pretty sure all scientist would agree with that...

That chart would appear to prove you wrong. Geology has nothing to do with climate, by the way.


Geology might not have anything to do with the current climate but it is a window into the past....And there is pretty clear evidence that the Earth has went through many Ice ages and tropical periods..all without the help of man...
 
2012-12-11 05:05:53 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: There are several ten-year troughs in that graph


Yeah, just imagine how much it would have warmed in the last 10 years if it had, you know, actually warmed.
 
2012-12-11 05:06:15 PM  
I'm hedging my bets on 12/21 with lotto tickets and climate change options.
 
2012-12-11 05:06:25 PM  

Nightsweat: zedster: Nightsweat: The oldest remnants of civilization are about 6000 11000 years old

FTFY

I wasn't really thinking neolithic societies, more Egypt/Babylon/Sumeria, but OK. still pretty recent on the 800,000 year scale.


I lived in Haifa, which is the site of the oldest known settlement . I believe Jericho is the oldest continually inhabited city at about 9000 years. Doesn't change your point, I was just being a hard ass :-P
 
2012-12-11 05:06:49 PM  

iheartscotch: Can we all just admit that graphs going back one hundred years are just as intellectually dishonest as charts going back ten years?

/ to draw meaningful conclusions on the climate; you need to consider data from thousands of years



How does paleoclimatological data have any bearing on the effects of rapidly increasing CO2 since the Industrial Revolution, unless you can identify similar episodes of CO2 increase for comparison to modern conditions?
 
2012-12-11 05:06:50 PM  
buck1138:

maxheck: SevenizGud:

buck1138: One more time cause you clearly have a case of the stupids.

Another tard who can't distinguish the following from each other:

A. The earth NEVER warmed.

B. The earth is not PRESENTLY warming.

Ok. Is the Earth warming? We'll wait for your answer before asking the next question.

Are you asking about this exact moment? Is this like Zeno's paradox?


No, goodness no. Was asking more about trends. There's been one going on for some 150+ years by every metric. "warming" wouldn't make any sense at an exact moment.
 
2012-12-11 05:07:14 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Geology has nothing to do with climate, by the way.


... Really?
 
2012-12-11 05:08:02 PM  

meanmutton: Here's another topic about which there is no scientific controversy but plenty of self-declared pro-science thinkers deny the science to further their own personal agenda:

In the long-term, diet and exercise alone will not bring about significant, sustained weight loss in the majority of people. You can easily find tons of qualified, long-term, peer-review studies confirming this. You can not find any qualified, long-term peer-reviewed study showing it to be false. Yet lots of people run around spouting off the idea that you can lose lots of weight and keep it off in the long term through diet and exercise as though that is fact.

Oh, and in case you're wondering: Here's the science

Here's the short of it:

In conclusion, this meta-analysis of 29 reports of long-term weight-loss maintenance indicated that weight-loss maintenance 4 or 5 y after a structured weight-loss program averages 3.0 kg or 23% of initial weight loss, representing a sustained reduction in body weight of 3.2%. Individuals who participated in a VLED program or lost ≥20 kg had a weight-loss maintenance at 4 or 5 y of 7 kg or 29% of initial weight loss, representing a sustained reduction in body weight of 6.6%. Although success in weight-loss maintenance has improved over the past decade, much more research is required to enable most individuals to sustain the lifestyle changes in physical activity and food choices necessary for successful weight maintenance.


The short of it seems to be that you misread the study because they directly say that exercise is strongly correlated with KEEPING weight off. The people regaining weight are those that revert to their post-weight-loss lifestyle. From the same study:


Our study confirmed the important role of exercise in weight-loss maintenance. Although persuasive prospective clinical trials have not been done to evaluate the long-term benefits of regular exercise for weight-loss maintenance, the 6 studies analyzed in this report and other extensive evidence (16,54-,56) emphasize the importance of exercise in long-term weight maintenance.


(You know, ignoring that the last SENTENCE of the paragraph you posted directly refutes what you said.)
 
2012-12-11 05:08:14 PM  

Pocket Ninja: 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 p ...


This may set the Fark record for most factual errors in one post. Reminds me of Bluto's Pearl Harbor speech.
 
2012-12-11 05:08:20 PM  
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-c arbon-dioxide-record-breaking/
The link that clickypops the above article. Its full of CHARTS AND DIAGRAMS!
Like this one:
i90.photobucket.com 

Look at the above chart and ask yourself "what is normal for the earth?"
It would appear that "hotter than now" and "more CO2 than now" are normal... but the heat doesn't seem to reflect the CO2 in the same way that the fourteen thousand copies of other peer reviewed papers would have you believe... its almost as if carbon dioxide does NOTHING to increase the atmospheric heat.
 
2012-12-11 05:08:24 PM  

turnerdude69: cameroncrazy1984: turnerdude69: cameroncrazy1984: turnerdude69: The Earth has been warming up long before people had anything to do with it...

[citation needed]

Because 99% of scientists disagree with this idea. And have proof to back it up. What do you have?

Geology?? There have been several ice ages and we are lucky enough to be in between the cycle...Pretty sure all scientist would agree with that...

That chart would appear to prove you wrong. Geology has nothing to do with climate, by the way.

Geology might not have anything to do with the current climate but it is a window into the past....And there is pretty clear evidence that the Earth has went through many Ice ages and tropical periods..all without the help of man...


Over a long period of time. That does not mean that man cannot also cause global warming. That's like saying that since walking exists, man cannot invent other modes of transportation, because there is only one way to get around .
 
2012-12-11 05:08:53 PM  

turnerdude69: And there is pretty clear evidence that the Earth has went through many Ice ages and tropical periods..all without the help of man...


This is both true and utterly irrelevant to the question of what is causing the current warming. See here.

I find it completely bizarre how many people there are in this thread who wander in and announce "But the climate has changed before!" Yes, scientists know this. Reflect on why they still believe that humans are causing the current warming.
 
2012-12-11 05:09:34 PM  
It doesn't matter. The damage is done. While i'd like nothing better than for humanity to get off the fossil fuel addiction it's on now, we can't reverse the changes we've made to this planet, short of popping a dozen volcanoes to reflect a portion of the sunlight to simulate a nuclear winter. HUGE Methane deposits in the russian/siberian northern permafrost is already starting to escape in large quantities, but it is nothing compared to the actual deposits still trapped under there, which will be released faster as the methane being released speeds up the whole process.

Nothing we do to reverse the effects will actually reverse the effects. Thank the anti-Climate change lobbyists and bullshait artists.

Humans will probably survive (like herpes), but in a completely different planet.

/back to drinking
//it's already hot as hell where i live, another 10 celcius increase will probably not matter much in the long run for me
 
2012-12-11 05:09:48 PM  
turnerdude69:

Geology might not have anything to do with the current climate but it is a window into the past....And there is pretty clear evidence that the Earth has went through many Ice ages and tropical periods..all without the help of man...

And there were forest fires millions of years before humans showed up.

This does not imply that we can't cause forest fires. 

That is a stupid line of logic, and you should feel ashamed! :)
 
2012-12-11 05:10:10 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SevenizGud: cameroncrazy1984: So, 8,000+ stations for 10 years proves that the globe hasn't been warming for the past 100-150?

Another tard who can't distinguish between "never warmed" and "currently warming".

Have you seen a graph of the past 100 years? There are several ten-year troughs in that graph

Look:

[berkeleyearth.org image 525x408] 

That's a graph of four different global temperature measurements since 1800.

What was your argument again? Not currently warming? Care to adjust your conclusion now?


I have no dog in this fight, but isn't that a land temperature graph? And don't we have a lot of paved land nowadays that we didn't in 1800? Paved land that's a lot hotter than it would be if it were shaded grass?
 
2012-12-11 05:10:27 PM  
Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics.
My friends and I have had 100 discussions. One of those discussions was about how it's wrong to kill puppies for sexual pleasure. Thus according to the chart above, only one in ten discussions reject puppy killing for sexual pleasure. Therefore only 1% of our discussions have been against puppy killing for sexual pleasure.

"An article about climate change" does not equal "An article in support of global warming."

I'm not saying global warming is not a thing, but I won't take it seriously so long as those defending it have to try to 'trick' me into their way of thinking instead of presenting serious evidence.
 
2012-12-11 05:10:37 PM  

SevenizGud: cameroncrazy1984: So, 8,000+ stations for 10 years proves that the globe hasn't been warming for the past 100-150?

Another tard who can't distinguish between "never warmed" and "currently warming".


You take 10 years out of a system that has been proven to not show clear trends for periods less than 30 years and you call other people 'tards'??

This has literally been pointed out to you over a hundred times but you are too stupid to understand ... your sample size is too small to be relevant. It causes your signal to noise ratio to be too low to get a clear trend.

The following animation explains the difference between how you see data and how intelligent people see data:
www.skepticalscience.com
 
2012-12-11 05:10:39 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.


No, this is not true. In the 60s and 70s, some scientific papers at the time said the earth was cooling, and some said it was warming. A majority of the papers, even back then, predicted warming. A few of those even predicted it based on a rise in greenhouse gasses.

Time magazine published an article about global cooling. They took one scientist's findings and reported them as if they were scientific fact. The reality is, there was no consensus back then on cooling or warming, but one was starting to form based on what was being published.
 
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