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  
•       •       •

37666 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 | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-11 06:05:15 PM

MyRandomName: Love how liberals believe this is a slam dunk refutation when it is simply a refutation of their own strawman argument.

Very few are saying the earth isn't warming. Congrats on showing this fact.

The argument is amplitude of change and risk quotient involved.

You look stupid when you localize all arguments to a strawman you have created. Likewise, please show how many of those cited articles support the liberal programs intended to fix the supposed problem.

Such a stupid argument.


Welcome. I see you've passed "Moving the Goalposts 101" with flying colors. It looks as if you're well on your way to mastering "Hand Waving 102" as well. Congratulations!
 
2012-12-11 06:07:10 PM

ancker: "Scientific method" is how we define it. At the time, it was widely accepted, for a really long time. [...] Today we define it differently. Who's to say that our method won't turn out to be just as faulty?


That's the stupidest relativist argument I've ever heard. "Some guys thousands of years ago using an epistemological method unlike modern science came to a wrong conclusion, therefore THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD ITSELF COULD BE WRONG!!!".

P.S. The guys who were closest to using the modern scientific method already concluded the Earth was round over 2000 years ago, and this was widely accepted among most of the educated classes for thousands of years.

IMO today scientists get too much credit for theories. Scientists develop theories then get paid enormous salaries to study/test these theories for their entire careers.

Oh. My. God. Scientists get paid to do science!
 
2012-12-11 06:07:18 PM

maxheck: turnerdude69:

maxheck: 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! :)

It's just a fact...I'm not assuming anything like you are....Earth has been warming since the last ice age...FACT ....You assume we can do something to stop it....

Then you'll have to present it better than "Well, A happened, so A can never be something we contributed to!"

I said nothing at all about stopping it, but you did say something about causes.


Where did I say what causes it???? I have no idea why the Earth has been warming since the last ice age...And neither do any of you...So stop pretending the tiny bit of information we do have can lead to such grand conclusions as we are the reason for it. As if we stopped what we are doing so would global warming.......

Nobody no matter how educated they think they are knows with any certainty why the planet has been warming up for the last few thousand years...
 
2012-12-11 06:07:19 PM

olddinosaur: Climate change, Texas style:

If you don't like the weather, wait ten minutes.


Stop. Please stop using that joke. You're not funny. You're not even unique. Everyone has killed it. It's dead. It's so dead the WHO has declared it eradicated.
 
2012-12-11 06:07:49 PM

Ambitwistor: If indeed it does kill off mankind years from now so what? That's how nature corrects itself.

Gee, I can't imagine why people don't take your argument seriously.


What's sad is in 50 years I will long since have died and there will probably nobody that even remembers/cares that I existed. Yet for some odd reason I seem to have more compassion for mankind than some others that will still be around or at least have kids around.
 
2012-12-11 06:07:55 PM
ancker:

Scientists develop theories then get paid enormous salaries to study/test these theories for their entire careers.

i50.tinypic.com

Is that like climatology bling?
 
2012-12-11 06:08:59 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 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..


There have to be so much more up there...lyrics, song titles, other bands? Help!
 
2012-12-11 06:09:29 PM

turnerdude69: Nobody no matter how educated they think they are knows with any certainty why the planet has been warming up for the last few thousand years...


Actually temperatures have been pretty stable for the last 10,000 years or so.

grist.files.wordpress.com

It's only in the last 100 that temperatures have risen 0.8 degrees C.

grist.files.wordpress.com

Link
 
2012-12-11 06:09:49 PM

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: Omg a Pocket Ninja post and all of you assholes are replying to it as if it's serious!?


Well, two people replying as if it's serious. Considering this is Fark, that's actually not too bad.
 
2012-12-11 06:10:05 PM

turnerdude69: I have no idea why the Earth has been warming since the last ice age...


It isn't warming since the last ice age, as I pointed out above. It warmed out of the last ice age some time ago, and has been slowly cooling since.

And neither do any of you...

The warming and cooling in the ice age cycles is due to well-known variations in Earth's orbit modulating the average, spatial, and seasonal patterns of insolation, which in turn affect continental ice growth and decay in the high latitudes.

So stop pretending the tiny bit of information we do have can lead to such grand conclusions as we are the reason for it. As if we stopped what we are doing so would global warming.......

Stop pretending your ignorance is universal.
 
2012-12-11 06:11:57 PM
www.realclimate.org
 
2012-12-11 06:12:03 PM
How many peer reviewed papers did it take for people to accept the genocide of jews during WWII? Or how many for Americans to accept slavery, then propagate gross racial stereotypes after the civil war?

Two things: If you're not a scientist, your opinion doesn't matter, and you will forever be the biatch of those of us who are. Further, if you are a scientist, then as long as you believe you're correct, keep your doubt alive- never stop. Never give in just because of an overwhelming number of peers that disagree. After all, think of all the bright ideas that were shiat on by the non-scientists.

tl;dr- non-scientists: shhhh, go back to being unimportant; scientists: keep the skepticism alive, fark non-scientists.
 
2012-12-11 06:14:19 PM
Yes, because he ad populum arguments are clear proof.
 
2012-12-11 06:15:13 PM

cameroncrazy1984: GoldDude: In other words, should we even bother trying? The earth has been around a lot longer than humans, and will be around a lot longer after we're gone too

Glad to see you have zero interest in the longevity of the human race. The earth is more important, amirite? God forbid we should try to elongate our stay on this planet.


The human race is doomed, unless we get another "thinning of the herd" like the Black Plague did for Europe, but on a global scale. Climate change is too slow, we need something that gives us at least 90% reduction in five years or less to get to a more sustainable level. As a species we have overstayed our welcome in this ecosystem. That is why I believe the "earth" as a complex system (or God, if you prefer) will snuff us out. I'm not a doomsday prophet, worried about this happening within my lifetime... I doubt it will, but if it does then them's the breaks.

I plant trees, donate to environmental/ecological NGOs, contributing to funds that purchase wetlands and keep them natural in preservation trusts. I try to make reasonable choices (e.g. drive a Subaru, not a Hummer; don't own a McMansion, and wouldn't even if I could afford it), so there is effort to make personal choices to improve our odds and the immediate environment in which we live. But realistically, I don't think it's gonna make enough difference to buy us anything but few more years or decades until the inevitable.

But have a nice day!
 
2012-12-11 06:16:30 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: turnerdude69: Nobody no matter how educated they think they are knows with any certainty why the planet has been warming up for the last few thousand years...

Actually temperatures have been pretty stable for the last 10,000 years or so.

[grist.files.wordpress.com image 470x264]

It's only in the last 100 that temperatures have risen 0.8 degrees C.

[grist.files.wordpress.com image 470x264]

Link


Drone.
 
2012-12-11 06:18:38 PM

Ima4nic8or: Yes, because he ad populum arguments are clear proof.


You're confusing an appeal to the majority with scientific consensus (what we have here). Ad populum doesn't apply, given a sizable number of people do not accept climate change.
 
2012-12-11 06:20:25 PM

Ambitwistor: turnerdude69: I have no idea why the Earth has been warming since the last ice age...

It isn't warming since the last ice age, as I pointed out above. It warmed out of the last ice age some time ago, and has been slowly cooling since.

And neither do any of you...

The warming and cooling in the ice age cycles is due to well-known variations in Earth's orbit modulating the average, spatial, and seasonal patterns of insolation, which in turn affect continental ice growth and decay in the high latitudes.

So stop pretending the tiny bit of information we do have can lead to such grand conclusions as we are the reason for it. As if we stopped what we are doing so would global warming.......

Stop pretending your ignorance is universal.


LOL...Stop pretending you are not ignorant...
 
2012-12-11 06:22:27 PM

OregonVet: Drone.


ok good talk
 
2012-12-11 06:22:51 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: turnerdude69: Nobody no matter how educated they think they are knows with any certainty why the planet has been warming up for the last few thousand years...

Actually temperatures have been pretty stable for the last 10,000 years or so.

[grist.files.wordpress.com image 470x264]

It's only in the last 100 that temperatures have risen 0.8 degrees C.

[grist.files.wordpress.com image 470x264]

Link


Right?? Cause we had thermometers there??? No way the data could be manipulated or flawed right?
 
2012-12-11 06:24:58 PM

turnerdude69: Right?? Cause we had thermometers there??? No way the data could be manipulated or flawed right?


You don't understand how the measurements are taken so they must be manipulated or flawed. H'okay.
 
2012-12-11 06:25:06 PM
1. Look at the list of papers that are cited as outliers
2. Think of the well-known authors who have differing opinions, or are lukewarmers
3. Note that none of them appear on the list
4. Dismiss pie chart out of hand
 
2012-12-11 06:25:10 PM

turnerdude69: LOL...Stop pretending you are not ignorant...


Gee, now there's an intelligent argument. Decades of data and scientific research on the topic, and the best you've got is "nobody dun know nothin!". The nice thing about it is that it's entirely immune to logic or evidence. As long as you're willing to automatically dismiss the entire field of Pleistocene climatology, it doesn't matter how much new evidence and research is added. You can still assert, "nobody dun know nothin!".
 
2012-12-11 06:25:56 PM
 
2012-12-11 06:26:55 PM

turnerdude69: Right?? Cause we had thermometers there??? No way the data could be manipulated or flawed right?


Yet another intellectually vacuous argument. All you have to say is "well the data could have been faked" and then you can ignore arbitrarily large amounts of evidence, all without having to do anything hard like think.
 
2012-12-11 06:29:19 PM
This is as good a place as any to point out "Science bling."

You know, the night manager at your local Wal Mart is responsible for millions of dollars worth of payroll, infrastructure, and inventory. This does not mean that the night manager at your local Walmart is a millionaire.

We hear stories sometimes of million-dollar grants to scientfic labs, and some people assume that they're fabulously wealthy.

My experience? The PI would bend heaven and earth to keep the best students, and often fail.

"Science bling" is a red flag saying "I don't know what the fark I'm talking about, but by gum, I'm going to comment in this thread!"
 
2012-12-11 06:30:11 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: turnerdude69: Right?? Cause we had thermometers there??? No way the data could be manipulated or flawed right?

You don't understand how the measurements are taken so they must be manipulated or flawed. H'okay.


To be fair, we're still within tolerance of that +/- 1 C, so your pics are...pointless.
 
2012-12-11 06:30:41 PM
So how come if 99% of scientists believe we are destroying the planet then why at least 90% of them keep contributing to it???

Same goes to all of you? If you believe in it so much then why do you consume any fossil fuels???

Where do you think the electricity comes from to even power your computer???...

I've never seen a cause with so many backers who do nothing to support what they believe...
 
2012-12-11 06:32:06 PM

omeganuepsilon: To be fair, we're still within tolerance of that +/- 1 C, so your pics are...pointless.


"Within tolerance"? What does that mean?
 
2012-12-11 06:33:10 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.


That only works if said person died before 2009.

But hey, let's not talk about the Royal Met report that states there has been no warming since 1997, and that we are back to 1857 levels.
 
2012-12-11 06:33:14 PM

Ambitwistor: omeganuepsilon: To be fair, we're still within tolerance of that +/- 1 C, so your pics are...pointless.

"Within tolerance"? What does that mean?


That you have to ask is amusing in and of itself.
 
2012-12-11 06:33:31 PM

Farking Canuck: 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 image 850x578]


What is kind of intriguing about the flat-ear "skeptics" chosen data, is that if you overlay the 2001-2009 global economic crisis (and accompanying drop in industrial capacity, and carbon output) on top of theiir data, it answers the question of "what would happen if you could dial back global CO2 output significantly, even for a couple of years?"

I'm not sure they quite intended it that way, but... 

/what was there about those years, anyway? like, from Jan '01 to Jan '09? It's as if there was some damper on the entire free-market system.... weird, huh?
 
2012-12-11 06:33:55 PM

turnerdude69: So how come if 99% of scientists believe we are destroying the planet then why at least 90% of them keep contributing to it???


You're getting stupider with each post.

We need to reduce our fossil fuel usage, eventually to zero, but not overnight. It's possible to hold this opinion and yet not live in a cave eating berries.
 
2012-12-11 06:35:24 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 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 06:35:51 PM

turnerdude69: So how come if 99% of scientists believe we are destroying the planet then why at least 90% of them keep contributing to it???

Same goes to all of you? If you believe in it so much then why do you consume any fossil fuels???

Where do you think the electricity comes from to even power your computer???...

I've never seen a cause with so many backers who do nothing to support what they believe...


Participation does not negate grievance. People on their own, can, and do, do things to mitigate their carbon footprint. But that they participate in life as we know it, which currently relies on fossil fuels, does not mean their concern over what we're doing to the planet is any less real, or valid.

And that is the entire point. Individuals here and there doing what they can is not enough to stop what is happening. It's going to take policies and actions and cooperation on a global scale.
 
2012-12-11 06:35:54 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.


To be fair, as I try to be objective, I do realize that even in my brief 32 1/2 years on this world, my anecdotal evidence is still just that. Is it warmer here than it was when I was a kid? By my casual observations, hell yes! But I'd not try to draw any conclusions from that. I'll leave that the the scientists who handle hard data and experiments and whatnot. And according to that chart, they would appear to largely confirm my anecdotal evidence.
 
2012-12-11 06:36:26 PM

Mangoose: 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.


This. This graph really only disproves the 'scientists don't agree' meme, not that climate change is real.

/You might be right, but you still can't use bad methods to prove the sky is blue.
 
2012-12-11 06:36:41 PM

turnerdude69: Where do you think the electricity comes from to even power your computer???...


For me? Niagara Falls.

I'm sorry, you were saying?
 
2012-12-11 06:37:16 PM

omeganuepsilon: Ambitwistor: omeganuepsilon: To be fair, we're still within tolerance of that +/- 1 C, so your pics are...pointless.

"Within tolerance"? What does that mean?

That you have to ask is amusing in and of itself.


No, it means you're being ambiguous and not realizing it, and then being a jackass about it when someone asks for honest clarification.

"Within tolerance" can mean many things. It could mean that the current trend lies within the observational error bars and cannot be verified as a real trend. It could mean that it lies within some unspecified past range of natural variability, and is therefore (by implication) not "unusual" (with unspecified implications for the detection and attribution of anthropogenic climate change). It could mean it lies within the biological tolerance of our species or the sociotechnological tolerance of our civilization and is therefore (by implication) unimportant. Or whatever. You tell me.
 
2012-12-11 06:37:22 PM
turnerdude69:

So how come if 99% of scientists believe we are destroying the planet then why at least 90% of them keep contributing to it???

Examples? Are you making things up???
 
2012-12-11 06:37:46 PM

omeganuepsilon: To be fair, we're still within tolerance of that +/- 1 C, so your pics are...pointless.


Now this is a fair observation, with just those two slides presented. It's not pointless in response to the post I was replying too. So there's that. Secondly, it's more about the rate at which temperature has increased in the last 100 years. I suggest watching the video. He makes it very simple. Link
 
2012-12-11 06:38:25 PM

Ambitwistor: turnerdude69: Right?? Cause we had thermometers there??? No way the data could be manipulated or flawed right?

Yet another intellectually vacuous argument. All you have to say is "well the data could have been faked" and then you can ignore arbitrarily large amounts of evidence, all without having to do anything hard like think.


you trust too much...Skeptics think....you follow
 
2012-12-11 06:39:41 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: jigger: cameroncrazy1984: prjindigo: its almost as if carbon dioxide does NOTHING to increase the atmospheric heat.

You do realize that the greenhouse effect is called so because that's legitimately how greenhouses work, right? Like, there is a real-world application to this theory that proves it correct?

The greenhouse effect does not work along the same principle as an actual greenhouse. Just sayin'.

Based on his posts in this thread, I get the feeling that that dude isn't all that bright.

I'm not the one that assumed that scientists that measure land temperature don't take variables into account. Just saying.


Yeah, I fully admit to not knowing how land temperature data is. That's why I don't go around posting land temperature charts and then deflecting with sarcasm when asked for information on the chart. Just sayin'
 
2012-12-11 06:39:50 PM
I've been alive since 1981 which is a pretty long time.

I remember some pretty hot summers in Ohio when I was growing up, very humid..

Summer's maybe a little hotter now, but I'm living in socal so its hard to do an exact apples to apples.

I don't have a chart or anything but hope this helps a little!
 
2012-12-11 06:39:58 PM

turnerdude69: you trust too much...Skeptics think....you follow


Given the context, this might be the stupidest comment I've ever seen on fark. In a decade. Go you.
 
2012-12-11 06:40:03 PM

turnerdude69: So how come if 99% of scientists believe we are destroying the planet then why at least 90% of them keep contributing to it???

Same goes to all of you? If you believe in it so much then why do you consume any fossil fuels???

Where do you think the electricity comes from to even power your computer???...

I've never seen a cause with so many backers who do nothing to support what they believe...


To be fair, at least some climate activists are willing do go the extra mile.
 
2012-12-11 06:40:44 PM

TabASlotB: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x404]
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


Time was published on April 4th, 1977 as it is. Not ice age materials. http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19770404,00.html

Not to say that I don't recall much of the same back then about the future ice age killing us all -- but if you're going to make the argument, don't use fake material

/Something Dan Rather got to learn the hard way
 
2012-12-11 06:41:39 PM

turnerdude69: you trust too much...Skeptics think....you follow


You're not a skeptic. A real skeptic would examine the evidence and the body of existing knowledge. "But everybody could be wrong!" is intellectual laziness masquerading as skepticism. You have no idea what the evidence is supporting our current theories of the causes of glacial cycles, or how the temperature record is constructed, let alone how good or bad they are.
 
2012-12-11 06:44:56 PM
Dusk-You-n-Me:

omeganuepsilon: To be fair, we're still within tolerance of that +/- 1 C, so your pics are...pointless.

Now this is a fair observation, with just those two slides presented. It's not pointless in response to the post I was replying too. So there's that. Secondly, it's more about the rate at which temperature has increased in the last 100 years. I suggest watching the video. He makes it very simple. Link


I keep wondering what 1C means to some people. 4C separated us from the last Ice Age. 1 C is like...

Crap. In a bored moment I figured out that it would take the entire power output from the Hoover Dam for 13 months to heat the lake behind it by one degree C.

We're going to see nitwits who go on about "One degree? Pshaw!" but that just sort of demonstrates how dumbass they are.
 
2012-12-11 06:45:12 PM

maxheck: turnerdude69:

So how come if 99% of scientists believe we are destroying the planet then why at least 90% of them keep contributing to it???

Examples? Are you making things up???


You're right...It's probably higher than 90%

How about the Hadron collider seems like a giant carbon footprint there by nothing but scientist's...Wonder how many scientist's have flown there to do some experiments??

I'm pretty sure it's green though....lol
 
2012-12-11 06:45:53 PM

Thunderpipes: 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.


I think the concern is what might happen if we get enough warming to melt all the icecaps. That would raise sea level 60 meters, which drown a huge portion of the habitat of a very important species -- homo sapiens. Including all of Florida.

What would fark be without the Florida tag?
 
Displayed 50 of 954 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report