Chigau: We only have a few hundred years of recorded history, and even less of that directly pertains to the environment

Why do you insist on saying this when in the very thread you're posting in there's information that this is blatantly false?

Whatever! Yes we know it's "Changing" like it has be for millions of years. The only idiots are the ones that are still willing to line the pockets of the likes of Al Gore just because they have changed the wording of something that we have no dang control over. F.Y.I. It has been noted evidence of ancient trees and rivers in Antarctica, I wonder if they freaked over Global cooling back in the day as this happen after the first Ice age blamed for offing cute little dino's.

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...

They don't believe they should have to sacrifice a damn thing, and in fact believe they should be given absolute control over the entire planet's fossil fuels, so they can burn them up flying around the world to reach a gym in Tibet in 26 minutes.

It's always other people that need to make the sacrifices, and hopefully kill themselves in an entertaining way, so their worthless Gaia-offending peasant lives aren't completely wasted.

/just the solutions themselves show that they don't really want to fix anything, just demand more cake and fuel to consume while denying it to others
//like "planting forests and leaving them alone," a solution designed to crowd out human habitation while doing far less to sequester carbon than "planting switchgrass, harvesting it, and using carbon-neutral transports to bury it at the bottom of abandoned coal mines"

 

WWCD

PsiChick: you still can't use bad methods to prove the sky is blue.

It`s always a sky blue sky, sometimes you can`t see it for the clouds or the rock though.

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?
Ambitwistor: 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.

Everybody is not wrong...Where did I say that???You are putting words in my mouth now.. I would not have this opinion if I had not looked at everything I can and still do ..And my opinion is always subject to change .....I trust more in geological and fossil records than I do in the made up interpretations of ice cores and tree ring data that is just plain flawed...

I STILL don't believe it.

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.

I blame Women's Liberation.

Have you ever looked in a woman's supply cabinet?

There is shiat in there that is DEADLY TOXIC.

The increase in fossil fuel consumption?

Excuse me, it has gone up every single year since we stopped chaining them to the stove, and don't get me started on the energy costs of all of those labor saving devices that are pitched to women, and the fact that they have to drive across town to get a tube of Frosty Passionfruit Pink lipstick.

After them comes the Gubbermint.

If climate change was such a big issue, why haven't we diverted 50% of all fund raise to adapting to it?

Cut the Defense budget, climate change will get us all before the Soviets or ChiComs will.

And why haven't we fully used the the atom? Why are we wasting time with the whole Green Energy, when we could have built 1000 new nuclear power plants with what we have tossed down a rat hole on renewable energy.

Cowards one and all. When the warmists start self immoleating to ease the human burden of Gaiam, maybe I'll sign on to reduce my foot print. Because that really does produce a lot of carbon, ask Himmler.

Dusk-You-n-Me: 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.So explain yourself...Do you believe everything you read???

climate has changed throughout history.

so what?

ancker: cameroncrazy1984: Kolg8: Got it. When there is a consesus on an issue, the majority has to be right. Which is why the earth is a flat object, with a sun that revolves around it.

You realize that the flat-earth concept was not scientific, right?

"Scientific method" is how we define it. At the time, it was widely accepted, for a really long time. Unfortunately it turned out wrong. (Seriously, Imagine how cool it would be if the earth was flat.)
Today we define it differently. Who's to say that our method won't turn out to be just as faulty?

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.

As a side note: Does anyone have a template for request funds from the NSF? I've got a good theory that's gonna take me at least 25 years to prove.

Actually, no. The flat earth was a religious theory, based on Church teachings from the Bible. Aristotle even knew that, but the Church put the kibosh on the whole "learning" thing in the dark ages.

Scientists don't get shiat-tons of money for free. Most live relatively middle class lives like the rest of us, and work to prove their ideas and experiments are worthwhile. Hell, I'm making more than the average Environmental Scientist just programming computers. Go ahead and write the NSF... they will laugh in your face because you have nothing by way of past experience, talent, or even a passing allegiance to reality.

You can have whatever opinion you want. But you don't get to make up your own facts.

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.

I have a denier at my work who reckons he's got a friend who got a research grant of $40k to do something non-climate related (but it's totally an example of the grants rort that they're all in on!).

I asked if the friend was a student, he is. I asked if he had any other income, he did not. I asked how long the research project was for, it was 2 years.

I then asked for clarification purposes if that meant that his income was to be 20k per year for essentially a full time job, and that any research costs would have to also come out of that. It appeared that this was the case. I then asked the denier (a network engineer on about 75k p/a) if he really thought that his friend was living some kind of government funded high life? He was less confident about the grants gravy train after that.....

/this guy also went on a rant about the IPCC totally being an international conspiracy to steal money from the west, as was evidenced by the billions of dollars in it's budget...he made the mistake of going on this rant in front of me with an internet connection.
/I think it took about 1 minute to work out their budget comes to a few million per year. Pretty small potatoes for the work they're trying to do.

would be good to do a similar chart

centuries during which the climate has not changed.

It would probably look the same.

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.

It's not like we closed the ozone hole by banning CFCs? There's absolutely no precedent that human activity can directly affect the atmosphere. Nope. None whatsoever.

turnerdude69:
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....

Just asking, but have you ever known a scientist in your life? And if not, why do you feel qualified to speak for them? 

(Well, ok, this is Fark. Obviously you can speak for them.)

Subby sucks his mother's d***.

Which turns out to be Al Gore. Very odd Fact-Denying Family.

I am reading a book that Carl Sagan wrote called 'Cosmos'. There was one particular exert that I feel pertains pretty well to this:

"In our ignorance [of climate change], we continue to push and pull, to pollute the atmosphere and brighten the land, oblivious of the fact that the long-term consequences are largely unknown. Our intelligence and technology have given us the power to affect the climate. How will we use this power? Are we willing to tolerate ignorance and complacency in matters that affect the entire human family?"

cameroncrazy1984: turnerdude69: Where do you think the electricity comes from to even power your computer???...

For me? Niagara Falls.

I'm sorry, you were saying?

Then Kudos to you for living a carbon free lifestyle....As long as you are not using gas or buying anything that was not renewable that is....Which I'm 99.99% sure you are

ltdanman44: [redgreenandblue.org image 480x326]

A thousand times this. People with kids who drive around in Hummers are farking idiots. Yay, let's pollute our kids' ecosystem! It's not like they have to live in it or anything!

I don't have kids and increasingly, I find myself caring less about how much we are shiatting in our sandbox. Unless immortality arrives I won't have to worry about the results. If you have kids, you should smarten the hell up IMHO.

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.

That was all I meant, why I phrased it that way. That was all.

I'm a bit of a skeptic, Not at the warming so much, but that it's not natural. Not saying either way, but there is a possibility that it's coincidental with a warming after an ice age. My only other post in this thread was asking about the margin of error of temp proxies in things like ice cores.

I'm not waving any armchair doctorates or anything. With the argument's highly publicized and politicized "findings", I'm simply not a Believer either way as are most of the Politard Fark Brigade.

Really I just like to poke at some of the things put forth as proof/arguments, in any given topic on fark. Glad you saw it for what it was.

Ambitwistor: A real skeptic would examine the evidence and the body of existing knowledge.

No. A real skeptic may state doubts, but is not committed to getting a degree in the sciences needed to be convinced. Honestly, that's what it would take. If you're an accountant, garbage man, medical doctor, whatever, you're allowed to be a skeptic that does not have the time nor the means to really study the details.

For example, what are your professional credentials that we should take your analysis of all of the facts as the only possible outcome? Pretend for a second that claims of such thing carry any weight on the internet, and that people aren't argumentative butthooks who rely heavily on faith(Welcome to Fark!).....

DustBunny: Chigau: We only have a few hundred years of recorded history, and even less of that directly pertains to the environment

Why do you insist on saying this when in the very thread you're posting in there's information that this is blatantly false?

Because he is right...the information is flawed

I'm sitting here with the furnace off, on Dec 11th, in Canada, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

Keep the warming coming! I'm saving on my heating bill! Soon, I;ll be able to grow coffee in my back yard!

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!".

fark it. We might as well start nuking each other because does anyone really believe that the planet doesn't get hit by giant comets every once in a while?

Jument: I don't have kids and increasingly, I find myself caring less about how much we are shiatting in our sandbox.

i'm in the same boat, but for different reasons. I don't think any other individual should make choices based on whether they have kids or not.

IMO, the world is in the shiatter whatever the case. I'd rather be the brightest candle than sit on a shelf for years, to borrow the analogy.

Better to have loved and lost, than not loved at all..

etc.

Not that I go out of my way to pollute mind you...just sayin..

Clemkadidlefark:

Which turns out to be Al Gore.

DRINK!

SlothB77: [thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]





SCIENCE!!! 

/It gets better with age.

as a layman observeri would agree that the weather is certainly different than it was twenty years ago. the winters so seem shorter (locally), weather does seem more severe (locally), and the summers have been hell (locally). and there seems to be plenty of evidence that the rest of the planet is warming too. the problem i have is that all the initiatives being proposed to supposedly slow global warming are all a bunch of crap. electric (coal powered) cars are just as bad, if not worse, than typical combustion. "carbon trading" is just a way to make money off of the crisis scare and has only slowed emissions in areas implemented by fractional amounts. solar and wind do not and probably will never meet demand or are cost prohibitive. on top of all this the EPA is charging power companies out of the ass to even make an effort to move from fossil fuel power production. for example, georgia power, made the effort to switch one of it's coal powered plants to a wood pellet powered plant. estimate costs of the conversion and engineered were 200 million dollars. once they presented their plans to the epa, the epa then added another 150 million dollars in regulatory fees and extra expenditures in order to build the plant. result? GP said fark it, they shut down the plant and 380 people lost their jobs.
I'm all for clean water, clean air, and conserving what wilderness we have left, but until "climate scientists" come up with a feasible solution to this apparent problem it's all just a bunch of hot air.

maxheck: turnerdude69:
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....

Just asking, but have you ever known a scientist in your life? And if not, why do you feel qualified to speak for them? 

(Well, ok, this is Fark. Obviously you can speak for them.)

All I know is you guys criticize me for being a skeptic and questioning a lot of the science but because you don't you are an expert..

A majority does not make something fact...Just because most scientists believe something now does not make them correct...This seems to be the best argument here...

Once again, for any dumb-f*ck that thinks humans are ruining the planet, and that it must be saved, should hear George Carlin's take on the whole subject.

Link

How to make a successful con

1. Find a naturally occurring event and tell people it is man made.
2. Get control of the periodicals dedicated to the area of science (as the CRU admitted)
3. Tell people it must be real because of all of the articles written about it.
4. Rake in lots of money selling things like carbon credits.

OMG did you see the Doctor Who cupcakes in the thread below this one?!?

turnerdude69: Just because most scientists believe something now does not make them correct...This seems to be the best argument here...

No, that seems like a steaming pile of derp.

If most scientists understand and acknowledge something it's almost certainly correct. There may be modifications to be made and future advances in thinking, but it's not like they're all entirely wrong.

DaCaptain19: Once again, for any dumb-f*ck that thinks humans are ruining the planet, and that it must be saved, should hear George Carlin's take on the whole subject.

Link

LOVE IT!!!!

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?

You DO realize that what reflects the heat back in in a greenhouse is a sheet of farking glass, right?
Greenhouses have LESS carbon dioxide in them than the surrounding environment because they keep em sealed up to stay warm to extend the growing season.
The "greenhouse effect" was proven WRONG by the same "scientists" who support AGW.
It was proven wrong in 1982 as well.

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: DubtodaIll:
I'm all for clean water, clean air, and conserving what wilderness we have left, but until "climate scientists" come up with a feasible solution to this apparent problem it's all just a bunch of hot air.

The "climate scientists" study "climate" and produce models that suggest cutting carbon emissions are a good place to start. However, it is not the climate scientists' job to provide solutions for cutting emissions. Sadly.

so then naturally all the money is going to fund initiatives to actually create feasible technology to solve the problem instead of just look at thermometers right?

In a recent guest blog, John McLean explained how Australia's CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology (Power and Smith) respectively were reporting a period of unprecedented El Niño dominance the last 30 years, which they blamed on human activity. Last year in May it was Vecchi who told us there was a just 1% probability that this was due to natural events.

On The Weather Channel blogs, meteorologist Stu Ostro, also found a similar continuity shift in weather pattern starting 30 years ago. Blog comments back to Stu and John McLean's blog here showed how the change had precious little to do with anthropogenic factors but was a large scale cyclical climate shift known for decades as the Great Pacific Climate Shift.

Later on it was shown to be the latest change in a cyclical regime change given the name Pacific Decadal Oscillation by Mantua et al. This followed research showing decadal like ENSO variability by Zhang et al. in 1993.

They found the Pacific Ocean temperature regime and overlying pressure patterns tended to persist in one mode for two or three decades and then flip to very nearly the opposite mode for a similar period.


Link

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: DubtodaIll:
I'm all for clean water, clean air, and conserving what wilderness we have left, but until "climate scientists" come up with a feasible solution to this apparent problem it's all just a bunch of hot air.

The "climate scientists" study "climate" and produce models that suggest cutting carbon emissions are a good place to start. However, it is not the climate scientists' job to provide solutions for cutting emissions. Sadly.

1, Those models are overly sensitive to CO2.
The average warming rate of 38 CMIP5 IPCC models is greater than observations, suggesting models over-react to CO2 (Professor John Christy)


2. The data going into the models is corrupted.


3. Models produce the results that the programmer wants to confirm.

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

so wouldn't a "+0.8°C" be within the "+-1.0°C" range?
waaaaay to negate your own argument.

chuckufarlie: Models produce the results that the programmer wants to confirm.

And yet the predictions the IPCC made 20 years ago have mostly come true. Odd that, isn't it?

whatshisname: turnerdude69: Just because most scientists believe something now does not make them correct...This seems to be the best argument here...

No, that seems like a steaming pile of derp.

If most scientists understand and acknowledge something it's almost certainly correct. There may be modifications to be made and future advances in thinking, but it's not like they're all entirely wrong.

Widely publicized consensus reports by "thousands" of scientists rarely represent the range of scientific opinion that attends our murky field of climate research. Funding resources are recommended for "Red Teams" of credentialed investigators, who study low climate sensitivity and the role of natural variability. Policymakers need to be aware of the full range of scientific views, especially when it appears that one-sided-science is the basis for policies which, for example, lead to increased energy costs for citizens. (Prof John Christy)

Science is not a popularity contest.

whatshisname: turnerdude69: Just because most scientists believe something now does not make them correct...This seems to be the best argument here...

No, that seems like a steaming pile of derp.

If most scientists understand and acknowledge something it's almost certainly correct. There may be modifications to be made and future advances in thinking, but it's not like they're all entirely wrong.

whatshisname: turnerdude69: Just because most scientists believe something now does not make them correct...This seems to be the best argument here...

No, that seems like a steaming pile of derp.

If most scientists understand and acknowledge something it's almost certainly correct. There may be modifications to be made and future advances in thinking, but it's not like they're all entirely wrong.

Really?? Cause CERN has already called Einsteins theory of relativity to be questioned...Turns out there are things like neutrinos that are faster than the speed of light... So even things like E=mc2 might not be fact...

Yet somehow we know for fact why the earth is warming??? lol

scalpod: 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.

It's not like we closed the ozone hole by banning CFCs? There's absolutely no precedent that human activity can directly affect the atmosphere. Nope. None whatsoever.

Can't close the ozone hole, ozone's charge is repelled by the southern magnetic bias.

Look THAT one up in a book.

whatshisname: chuckufarlie: Models produce the results that the programmer wants to confirm.

And yet the predictions the IPCC made 20 years ago have mostly come true. Odd that, isn't it?

Exactly what predictions are you talking about? None of their predictions have come true.

This article says nothing about global warming being man made, which is what the debate is about 99 percent of the time.