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  
•       •       •

37663 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 | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-11 07:37:47 PM
Isn't it rather arrogant for human beings to decide what the "correct" temperature of the Earth is supposed to be?
 
2012-12-11 07:38:35 PM

turnerdude69: Turns out there are things like neutrinos that are faster than the speed of light


This isn't true. But I'm sure you're up to speed on all things climate science.
 
2012-12-11 07:38:37 PM

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: 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.


Citations needed. From a peer reviewed source, which has already been subject, usually, to criticism.

/reviews papers and grant proposals
//dog eat dog out there


Peer reviewed sources are also corrupted. The CRU admitted that years ago.

My first sentence has a citation. Sorry that you missed it.

If you are not aware of the problems with the data, what are you doing here? You are not aware that the data prior to 1850 is proxy data with a margin of error larger than the increase recorded since then? You are not aware that most of the reporting stations went on line in the 1980s? You are not aware that many of the stations that went on line since the 1980s have experienced a change of environment? Many were put in places that were relatively isolated but since then, the areas have become developed. Some stations that used to be in open fields are not sitting between buildings and parking lots.

If you want a citation for the above, I suggest that you read the IPCC reports. It is all laid out there. If that citation is not good enough for you, nothing else ever will be.
 
2012-12-11 07:38:41 PM

turnerdude69:

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


Uh...nice irony...you do know they determined that the FtL measurement was an error?
 
2012-12-11 07:38:44 PM

turnerdude69: 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


No. They hinted at that, then they figured out that their instruments were misbehaving. If you aren't going to keep up with news from last year, will you at least get out of the way?
 
2012-12-11 07:38:58 PM

jigger: TabASlotB: So the entire climate science community is in on the scam then? From every relevant research institution? In governmental research groups that don't have to compete for funding, too? In countries around the world? At some point "it's all a scam to keep grant money flowing" collapses under the size of the supposed conspiracy. Not to mention that fabricating data with public monies is career suicide when it's discovered and probably actionable fraud...

As a young scientist, I can make my bones proving the graybeards wrong about something. Why wouldn't I?

It's not a conspiracy, but funding panels and peer review can be very political. I didn't say it's all a scam, but just keeping the grants flowing takes more than just being a good scientist. There is a bit of a political edge to it. I don't mean Dems and Repubs. I mean, basic stupid soap opera backstabbing shiat.


And no rational person is arguing that climate science (or any other field with intelligent peoples, clashing egos and limited resources) is purely virtuous. But assertions of wide-spread fraud--which are common, even on Fark--simply don't hold water. It's insulting to the broader science community (of which I am a part) to see jackasses continuously impugn the ethics and motives of a broad set of people because they have the audacity to present their research and some of its implications. Naturally, some of the scientists go overboard, some are complete arrogant pricks, some are inept at communication with the public, some have made glaring scientific mistakes; but the entire field is subject to a well-funded disinformation campaign.

It's not a coincidence that many of the voices of dissent, particularly those associated with the George C. Marshall Institute, have histories denying well-established facts about acid rain, DDT, ozone depletion, tobacco cancer risks and second-hand smoke. There are a small number of legitimate scientists that have parlayed their credibility into lucrative careers spreading willful disinformation. In the words of a now-infamous 1969 memo from tobacco company executive: "Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy." Some of the very same people working on those tobacco campaigns have been fighting climate scientists for decades.

So, feel free to point out the political bullshiat that can hamper good climate science and climate policy. Shine the light of day on it and it can improve. But you should also acknowledge the reality that this group has been subject to political bullshiat for quite some time, and the thought leaders on the dissenting side are rarely publicly held to the standards of political/ideological purity that seems to be constantly demanded from climate researchers.
 
2012-12-11 07:39:00 PM
Mainstream scientists are conformists that want tenure and funding. That is all. Tesla was the last great scientist.
 
2012-12-11 07:39:30 PM

Mouser: Isn't it rather arrogant for human beings to decide what the "correct" temperature of the Earth is supposed to be?


If by arrogant you mean stupid, yes. Although arrogant works too.
 
2012-12-11 07:40:08 PM

Mouser: Isn't it rather arrogant for human beings to decide what the "correct" temperature of the Earth is supposed to be?


Correct is a relative term. We're just hoping to keep temperatures correct for sustained human life. Because, well, we happen to live here at the moment.
 
2012-12-11 07:40:36 PM

omeganuepsilon: 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!).....


So, what you're saying is you don't put much weight in expert opinion, but you can't be bothered to learn enough about it yourself to tell us why?

You're allowed to be a skeptic, but skepticism follows facts. It doesn't just say "that's all too complicated for me, so I'm going with my gut".
 
2012-12-11 07:41:10 PM
I guess this needs to be restated.

YOU DO NOT GET FUNDING BASED ON A PREDETERMINED OUTCOME.

There is no funding for "Global warming."
There is no funding for "Denying global warming."

There IS funding for "What were the temperatures like XXXX years ago?"
All you need to do to get that funding is identify a method that will record temperature (tree-rings, ice cores, other proxies, etc). Then you can publish your findings (go through peer review at this point. Then you have to make the data you collect (the raw data) available to the public so that if someone disagrees with you they can go in and see if they can find a fault in your findings.

This is what happened with the Koch funded study. "Climategate" happened climate change deniers jumped on it, the Koch brothers gave funding to one of the scientists that has openly been one of the strongest climate deniers, he went through all of the "Climategate" data and *shocked* determined that yes indeed the world is warmer now. It is not like the climate change scientists are shrouded in mystery. Everything is available to the public (That is mandatory if you are being funded through the government, the data is not yours it is the governments).
 
2012-12-11 07:41:45 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Mouser: Isn't it rather arrogant for human beings to decide what the "correct" temperature of the Earth is supposed to be?

Correct is a relative term. We're just hoping to keep temperatures correct for sustained human life. Because, well, we happen to live here at the moment.


When will the temperatures change into uninhabitable territory? 2050?
 
2012-12-11 07:43:25 PM

TabASlotB: jigger: TabASlotB: So the entire climate science community is in on the scam then? From every relevant research institution? In governmental research groups that don't have to compete for funding, too? In countries around the world? At some point "it's all a scam to keep grant money flowing" collapses under the size of the supposed conspiracy. Not to mention that fabricating data with public monies is career suicide when it's discovered and probably actionable fraud...

As a young scientist, I can make my bones proving the graybeards wrong about something. Why wouldn't I?

It's not a conspiracy, but funding panels and peer review can be very political. I didn't say it's all a scam, but just keeping the grants flowing takes more than just being a good scientist. There is a bit of a political edge to it. I don't mean Dems and Repubs. I mean, basic stupid soap opera backstabbing shiat.

And no rational person is arguing that climate science (or any other field with intelligent peoples, clashing egos and limited resources) is purely virtuous. But assertions of wide-spread fraud--which are common, even on Fark--simply don't hold water. It's insulting to the broader science community (of which I am a part) to see jackasses continuously impugn the ethics and motives of a broad set of people because they have the audacity to present their research and some of its implications. Naturally, some of the scientists go overboard, some are complete arrogant pricks, some are inept at communication with the public, some have made glaring scientific mistakes; but the entire field is subject to a well-funded disinformation campaign.

It's not a coincidence that many of the voices of dissent, particularly those associated with the George C. Marshall Institute, have histories denying well-established facts about acid rain, DDT, ozone depletion, tobacco cancer risks and second-hand smoke. There are a small number of legitimate scientists that have parlayed their credibility into lucrativ ...


The IPCC has admitted on paper that the data in their reports has been edited to make it more politically acceptable. Their words, not mine.

The IPCC has also admitted that the purpose of their activities is to redistribute the wealth of the world. They see lots of money pouring into Africa.


There is a conspiracy, but not by any groups of scientists. It is from a group of people from the UN.
 
2012-12-11 07:45:16 PM

BravadoGT: Consensus =/= science. Still.


this
but also toss in the, peer reviewed doesnt mean unbiased or factual. Just means that your peers agree with you. And wont be harmed professionally if 100 years later they are proved wrong.

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement." 1894 - Michelson commenting on Lord Kelvin
Pretty much all the peers were pretty certain that there was nothing new to learn. LOL

Link
Link
All of scientific history is filled with theories which were later proven to be false.

Greenhouse Effect - little chance that it will be disproved
Anthropomorphic climate change - could be disproved in 20-2000 years by looking at the historical weather records.

What is likely to happen in the next 2000 years? warmth followed by ice age.
Strange that every glacial period is preceded by spike in warming and co2, follow by ICE.
I am not sure that our current warming is anything other than more of the same.

In the end, it doesnt matter what the cause of the warming is.
The effect on human suffering is exactly the same.
And anyone who thinks that we can just reduce CO2 is a bit silly.
None of the accords have required India and China to slash their emissions by 50%.
Strange, India and China continue to greatly increase their emissions each year, more than offsetting the rest of the world's reductions.

so, we wont do anything other than damage control and we would be better off continuing to think and plan that way.

invest in dikes and pumps!!
 
2012-12-11 07:45:39 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: When will the temperatures change into uninhabitable territory? 2050?


We don't know for certain (of course), but if we continue on this trend the latter half of this century is going to be very bad for us, and life in general.

Anything close to a 4 degrees C increase has been described as "hell on earth".

grist.files.wordpress.com

Desertification, water shortages, agricultural disruptions, rising sea levels, vanishing coral, tropical forest die-offs, mass species extinctions, oh my. Kevin Anderson, one of the lead scientists involved, was moved to say that "a 4 degrees C future is incompatible with an organized global community, is likely to be beyond 'adaptation', is devastating to the majority of ecosystems, and has a high probability of not being stable." Link
 
2012-12-11 07:45:55 PM

japlemon: 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.

But you can't raise fuel taxes on the sun, now can you? ;-)


You appear to have a lot of unwarranted faith in Congress.
 
2012-12-11 07:46:08 PM

Lligeret: I guess this needs to be restated.

YOU DO NOT GET FUNDING BASED ON A PREDETERMINED OUTCOME.

There is no funding for "Global warming."
There is no funding for "Denying global warming."

There IS funding for "What were the temperatures like XXXX years ago?"
All you need to do to get that funding is identify a method that will record temperature (tree-rings, ice cores, other proxies, etc). Then you can publish your findings (go through peer review at this point. Then you have to make the data you collect (the raw data) available to the public so that if someone disagrees with you they can go in and see if they can find a fault in your findings.

This is what happened with the Koch funded study. "Climategate" happened climate change deniers jumped on it, the Koch brothers gave funding to one of the scientists that has openly been one of the strongest climate deniers, he went through all of the "Climategate" data and *shocked* determined that yes indeed the world is warmer now. It is not like the climate change scientists are shrouded in mystery. Everything is available to the public (That is mandatory if you are being funded through the government, the data is not yours it is the governments).


You take any study that any scientist has dreamed up and add the phrase 'and the effects on it by global warming" and you can get your grant money.


The average world temperature has increased by less than ONE DEGREE CELSIUS since 1850.
 
2012-12-11 07:47:49 PM
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...


I'm not a butcher, a baker or a candlestick maker. Nor are climatologists versed in whatever it is you do.

I could rant and rave about how butchers or for climatologists don't know what they're talking about, but should I be taken seriously just because I'm irate?
 
2012-12-11 07:47:58 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: When will the temperatures change into uninhabitable territory? 2050?

We don't know for certain (of course), but if we continue on this trend the latter half of this century is going to be very bad for us, and life in general.

Anything close to a 4 degrees C increase has been described as "hell on earth".

[grist.files.wordpress.com image 650x477]

Desertification, water shortages, agricultural disruptions, rising sea levels, vanishing coral, tropical forest die-offs, mass species extinctions, oh my. Kevin Anderson, one of the lead scientists involved, was moved to say that "a 4 degrees C future is incompatible with an organized global community, is likely to be beyond 'adaptation', is devastating to the majority of ecosystems, and has a high probability of not being stable." Link


The average world temperature has increased by less than ONE DEGREE CELSIUS since 1850. There is no reason the believe that this level of change is going to increase.

In short, your post is a load of crap.
 
2012-12-11 07:48:50 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: When will the temperatures change into uninhabitable territory? 2050?

We don't know for certain (of course), but if we continue on this trend the latter half of this century is going to be very bad for us, and life in general.

Anything close to a 4 degrees C increase has been described as "hell on earth".



Desertification, water shortages, agricultural disruptions, rising sea levels, vanishing coral, tropical forest die-offs, mass species extinctions, oh my. Kevin Anderson, one of the lead scientists involved, was moved to say that "a 4 degrees C future is incompatible with an organized global community, is likely to be beyond 'adaptation', is devastating to the majority of ecosystems, and has a high probability of not being stable." Link


Well that's frightening
 
2012-12-11 07:49:27 PM

chuckufarlie: The average world temperature has increased by less than ONE DEGREE CELSIUS since 1850.


Correct, I've said this a few times myself in this thread.

chuckufarlie: There is no reason the believe that this level of change is going to increase.


Well no, there is reason. That's kind of the whole point.

chuckufarlie: In short, your post is a load of crap.


Because you say so is not proof of anything.
 
2012-12-11 07:49:33 PM

CKret: [www.realclimate.org image 842x595]



Your graph stops with CO2 at ~280 ppm; it's now ~390 ppm, a level 40% greater than natural glacial/interglaical cycles can account for.

Why might that be?
 
2012-12-11 07:49:38 PM

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: 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.

You keep on citing Christy, got any others? Or is he just popular?


Do you have a problem with Christy? He was acceptable to the IPCC. That should be enough for any warmer.
 
2012-12-11 07:49:48 PM
Two things that I'm sure someone else has already said:

You can't prove a future event, and the issue is not whether the climate is still changing like it's been for the last several billion years, the issue is the current cause. Most of the "deniers" haven't been denying change, they've been denying the fallacious implication that we're necessarily more responsible for it than we were for the same atmospheric and climatic changes millions of years ago.

Scientifically, we'll have to wait and see before passing judgment about cause/guilt/meaning/outcome, but on the other hand, making an unscientific assumption about cause may be beneficial in the long run (though we'll have to wait and see about that too). I personally don't care either way. No matter what happens, it's unlikely that the planet will "die" since it's survived all of this before. We'll be the ones doing the dying and it's a biatchildish to distract people from that fear by talking about killing the planet itself.

TFA and the graph contained within also draw upon several logical fallacies and whomever is responsible for it/them is part of the problem. Whatever your personal thoughts, everyone who's commented in this thread has been trolled. Including me.
 
2012-12-11 07:51:08 PM
From the Fark Archives, 1026 AD: Here it is, the only pie graph you'll ever need to deal with the next flat earth denying idiot.
 
2012-12-11 07:51:30 PM
Dusk-You-n-Me:

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: When will the temperatures change into uninhabitable territory? 2050?

We don't know for certain (of course), but if we continue on this trend the latter half of this century is going to be very bad for us, and life in general.


Anything close to a 4 degrees C increase has been described as "hell on earth".

Hyperbole aside, ask any denier what the difference between now and the last ice age was next time they go on about "It's only 2C!!!"

You'll either get silence of spluttering, but nothing coherent.
 
2012-12-11 07:51:34 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: chuckufarlie: The average world temperature has increased by less than ONE DEGREE CELSIUS since 1850.

Correct, I've said this a few times myself in this thread.

chuckufarlie: There is no reason the believe that this level of change is going to increase.

Well no, there is reason. That's kind of the whole point.

chuckufarlie: In short, your post is a load of crap.

Because you say so is not proof of anything.


I am afraid that you are completely wrong. There is no reason to believe that the change in temperature is going to increase. And just because you say that it will is not proof of anything.
 
2012-12-11 07:53:26 PM
There can be NO doubt that the climate is changing.

The semantics are going to be around is in us? Is it natural (the sun..the tilt).

But that all said we need to move to a post carbon economy even if the world starts to cool down again because the stuff is getting scarce and if we don't start using less of it now, and plan to be mostly off of it in 100 years then we'll run out and our civilization will crash.

And since we'll have used up most if NOT ALL of the easily accessible energy reserves the level of our civilization is our peak, we'll down bad and perhaps rise up to 19th century levels in 600 years or so, and then stay there forever until our species dies out.

So, use LED bulbs, drive a smaller car, wear an extra shirt in the house, don't buy a ton of crap from china you don't really even want, let alone need and things will actually get better.
 
2012-12-11 07:53:56 PM

Mouser: Isn't it rather arrogant for human beings to decide what the "correct" temperature of the Earth is supposed to be?


Nope
We are currently in the holocene, a local climate maximum, an interglacial, a period between ice ages.
So the normal temperate is farking ice age cold, we just happen to live in the warm spot.
 
2012-12-11 07:54:34 PM

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


Yes because when I want a truly scientific and well thought out knowledgeable source I think of a comedian.
 
2012-12-11 07:54:46 PM

chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: 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.


Citations needed. From a peer reviewed source, which has already been subject, usually, to criticism.

/reviews papers and grant proposals
//dog eat dog out there

Peer reviewed sources are also corrupted. The CRU admitted that years ago.

My first sentence has a citation. Sorry that you missed it.




Citing Christy by name is not citation of a peer reviewed research publication. I don't care who he is, I dont want a person's name, or opinion, I want the work presented.




If you are not aware of the problems with the data, what are you doing here? You are not aware that the data prior to 1850 is proxy data with a margin of error larger than the increase recorded since then? You are not aware that most of the reporting stations went on line in the 1980s? You are not aware that many of the stations that went on line since the 1980s have experienced a change of environment? Many were put in places that were relatively isolated but since then, the areas have become developed. Some stations that used to be in open fields are not sitting between buildings and parking lots.



I seem to recall a publication debunking your complaint. a group who set out with the same complaints ..big skeptics on global climate change, then they looked through all that "flawed" data with a fine tooth comb, modeled it rigorously, and came to the same conclusions as the majority of climate scientists, with five peer reviewed publications thus far.


If you want a citation for the above, I suggest that you read the IPCC reports. It is all laid out there. If that citation is not good enough for you, nothing else ever will be.


What's good enough for me is an abundance of peer reviewed science.
 
2012-12-11 07:55:14 PM

The term "consensus science" will often be appealed to regarding arguments about climate change to bolster an assertion. This is a form of "argument from authority." Consensus, however, is a political notion, not a scientific notion. As I testified to the Inter-Academy Council in June 2010, wrote in Nature that same year (Christy 2010), and documented in my written House Testimony last year (House Space, Science and Technology, 31 Mar 2011) the IPCC and other similar Assessments do not represent for me a consensus of much more than the consensus of those selected to agree with a particular consensus. The content of these climate reports is actually under the control of a relatively small number of individuals - I often refer to them as the "climate establishment" - who through the years, in my opinion, came to act as gatekeepers of scientific opinion and information, rather than brokers. The voices of those of us who object to various statements and emphases in these assessments are by-in-large dismissed rather than accommodated. This establishment includes the same individuals who become the "experts" called on to promote IPCC claims in government reports such as the endangerment finding by the Environmental Protection Agency. As outlined in my House Testimony, these "experts" become the authors and evaluators of their own research relative to research which challenges their work. But with the luxury of having
the "last word" as "expert" authors of the reports, alternative views vanish.

I've often stated that climate science is a "murky" science. We do not have laboratory methods of testing our hypotheses as many other sciences do. As a result what passes for science includes, opinion, arguments-from-authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by preselected groups. This is not science.


John R. Christy, PhD
Alabama State Climatologist
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
House Energy and Power Subcommittee
20 September 2012
 
2012-12-11 07:56:27 PM

Slam1263: 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.



Since such a doesn't exist, not talking about it is the only sensible thing to do.

Unfortunately, you're not being sensible.
 
2012-12-11 07:57:07 PM
chuckufarlie:

Dusk-You-n-Me: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: When will the temperatures change into uninhabitable territory? 2050?

We don't know for certain (of course), but if we continue on this trend the latter half of this century is going to be very bad for us, and life in general.

Anything close to a 4 degrees C increase has been described as "hell on earth".

[grist.files.wordpress.com image 650x477]

Desertification, water shortages, agricultural disruptions, rising sea levels, vanishing coral, tropical forest die-offs, mass species extinctions, oh my. Kevin Anderson, one of the lead scientists involved, was moved to say that "a 4 degrees C future is incompatible with an organized global community, is likely to be beyond 'adaptation', is devastating to the majority of ecosystems, and has a high probability of not being stable." Link

The average world temperature has increased by less than ONE DEGREE CELSIUS since 1850. There is no reason the believe that this level of change is going to increase.

In short, your post is a load of crap.


Hey, Nicky! How much of all the power that the human race has ever put out would it take to make 1C difference in the atmosphere? 

It's an enormous farking amount of power involved once you opaque the atmosphere to IR radiation, and it's going to take a lot longer to get rid of the energy that it's absorbing. It's understood that you are an astroturfing slut, but really... Ask corporate why they are doing this.
 
2012-12-11 07:57:19 PM

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: 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.


Citations needed. From a peer reviewed source, which has already been subject, usually, to criticism.

/reviews papers and grant proposals
//dog eat dog out there

Peer reviewed sources are also corrupted. The CRU admitted that years ago.

My first sentence has a citation. Sorry that you missed it.

Citing Christy by name is not citation of a peer reviewed research publication. I don't care who he is, I dont want a person's name, or opinion, I want the work presented.

If you are not aware of the problems with the data, what are you doing here? You are not aware that the data prior to 1850 is proxy data with a margin of error larger than the increase recorded since then? You are not aware that most of the reporting stations went on line in the 1980s? You are not aware that many of the stations that went on line since the 1980s have experienced a change of environment? Many were put in places that were relatively isolated but since then, the areas have become developed. Some stations that used to be in open fields are not sitting between buildings and parking lots.



I seem to recall a publication debunking your complaint. a group who ...


peer review does not make the paper true, nor accurate.


So you are saying that a paper debunked comments made originally by the IPCC. That is interesting.
 
2012-12-11 07:57:28 PM
Since such a report doesn't exist...
 
2012-12-11 07:57:54 PM

rob.d: But that all said we need to move to a post carbon economy even if the world starts to cool down again because the stuff is getting scarce and if we don't start using less of it now, and plan to be mostly off of it in 100 years then we'll run out and our civilization will crash.


Um where is fossil fuel getting scarce?
LOL
US has 200+ years of NG.
US is massively increasing its crude oil production and has started exporting gasoline.
US has 100-200+ years of coal.
so scarce?

YES, I wish the fark we were building massive numbers of fission power plants.
But it is cheaper to drill drill drill.
Until that changes, we will continue to burn burn burn.
 
2012-12-11 07:58:05 PM
Argumentum ad populum

// stick to space Mr BA ..!..
 
2012-12-11 07:58:22 PM
The climate has been changing for billions of years. Adapt.
 
2012-12-11 07:58:32 PM
Let's just take ice cores for example....You man made global warming advocates swear by them as if they were the bible...Do you even know how they estimate years in the core layers?? They assume that the melting snow between the layers of unmelted snow gives them the "rings" to count the years and that supposedly only happens in the summer....What if it stayed real cold for a long time and there is little precipitation?? How would you know? Would you just count it as one year? Or vise versa...
 
2012-12-11 07:59:01 PM

rob.d: There can be NO doubt that the climate is changing.

The semantics are going to be around is in us? Is it natural (the sun..the tilt).

But that all said we need to move to a post carbon economy even if the world starts to cool down again because the stuff is getting scarce and if we don't start using less of it now, and plan to be mostly off of it in 100 years then we'll run out and our civilization will crash.

And since we'll have used up most if NOT ALL of the easily accessible energy reserves the level of our civilization is our peak, we'll down bad and perhaps rise up to 19th century levels in 600 years or so, and then stay there forever until our species dies out.

So, use LED bulbs, drive a smaller car, wear an extra shirt in the house, don't buy a ton of crap from china you don't really even want, let alone need and things will actually get better.


I thought all of the hippies had died. Who knew!
 
2012-12-11 08:00:46 PM
chuckufarlie:

I am afraid that you are completely wrong. There is no reason to believe that the change in temperature is going to increase. And just because you say that it will is not proof of anything.

The irony in that last sentence is amazing.
 
2012-12-11 08:01:13 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: turnerdude69: Turns out there are things like neutrinos that are faster than the speed of light

This isn't true. But I'm sure you're up to speed on all things climate science.


I stand corrected...But I think my point is clear...
 
2012-12-11 08:02:22 PM

chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: 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.

You keep on citing Christy, got any others? Or is he just popular?

Do you have a problem with Christy? He was acceptable to the IPCC. That should be enough for any warmer.


I'm not a "Warmer". I'm a scientist. I look at data, and models, not opinions, and so far all you're tossing are opinions.

By the way, your arguments for past data uncertainty hold no water --- it means nothing of note, as we have very little data uncertainty as of late, so all far past data needs to do is to provide a trajectory range, which narrows quite a bit as we come into the modern era.

Again, these guys.
 
2012-12-11 08:02:30 PM

chuckufarlie: There is no reason to believe that the change in temperature is going to increase.


Sure there is. CO2 emissions stay in the atmosphere a long, long time. That's the kicker here.

That 0.8 degree C increase is a response from what we were doing 50 to 100 years ago. What we see in the first half of this century will be a response to what we've done the last 50 years. What we do in the first half of this century will determine what we see in the latter half of this century. Even if we were to stop all emissions today, the temperature will still increase for the next few decades, because of the lagging effect of emissions.

We're already set to blow past the 2 degree C marker. Scientists now consider that too high to be safe and too low to be possible.

The real threat is when the earth takes over for us. When the Siberian permafrost melts it will release methane, warming the planet, further melting the permafrost, releasing more methane, and so on. When white sea ice (which reflects energy) melts and turns into blue water (which absorbs energy), this will also heat up the planet, further melting ice, further warming the planet, and so on.

If these positive feedback loops are set in motion emissions won't matter anymore. There will be nothing we can do to stop the warming. The planet will have taken over for us, and it will be out of our hands completely
 
2012-12-11 08:04:02 PM

turnerdude69: But I think my point is clear...


If your point is to question someone else's citation, get proven wrong, then move on to the next thing you want to question (ice cores now, apparently), then yes, the point of you being in this thread is clear.
 
2012-12-11 08:04:45 PM

chuckufarlie: Lligeret: I guess this needs to be restated.

YOU DO NOT GET FUNDING BASED ON A PREDETERMINED OUTCOME.

There is no funding for "Global warming."
There is no funding for "Denying global warming."

There IS funding for "What were the temperatures like XXXX years ago?"
All you need to do to get that funding is identify a method that will record temperature (tree-rings, ice cores, other proxies, etc). Then you can publish your findings (go through peer review at this point. Then you have to make the data you collect (the raw data) available to the public so that if someone disagrees with you they can go in and see if they can find a fault in your findings.

This is what happened with the Koch funded study. "Climategate" happened climate change deniers jumped on it, the Koch brothers gave funding to one of the scientists that has openly been one of the strongest climate deniers, he went through all of the "Climategate" data and *shocked* determined that yes indeed the world is warmer now. It is not like the climate change scientists are shrouded in mystery. Everything is available to the public (That is mandatory if you are being funded through the government, the data is not yours it is the governments).

You take any study that any scientist has dreamed up and add the phrase 'and the effects on it by global warming" and you can get your grant money.


The average world temperature has increased by less than ONE DEGREE CELSIUS since 1850.


1.5 degrees, from the evidence.

Again, these guys.
 
2012-12-11 08:05:11 PM
Ummm....

How many scientific peer reviewed papers on global warming were written between 1991 and 2012??

More than 14,000 in 21 years?

Just questioning his sample size.
 
2012-12-11 08:05:14 PM

turnerdude69: Let's just take ice cores for example....You man made global warming advocates swear by them as if they were the bible...Do you even know how they estimate years in the core layers?? They assume that the melting snow between the layers of unmelted snow gives them the "rings" to count the years and that supposedly only happens in the summer....What if it stayed real cold for a long time and there is little precipitation?? How would you know? Would you just count it as one year? Or vise versa...


well because adults read books or articles about the ice cores
1) two mile time machine is an AWESOME BOOK ... serously
2) nothing to do with melting ....

the layers are snow fall and salt and dust and and and and ....
In theory there could be multiple numbers of years where it never stopped snowing or never snowed ... but that does not appear to be the case.
 
2012-12-11 08:05:39 PM

prjindigo: 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.



i0.kym-cdn.com

What do you believe would happen to Earth's temperature if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere?

I'll repeat my earlier question, since no denier has been able to answer:

How does a 40% increase in a known greenhouse gas since the Industrial Revolution NOT cause warming? Is the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide also part of the grand socialist plot? Have physicists since the 1880s been in on it as well?
 
Displayed 50 of 954 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report