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  
•       •       •

37670 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 | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-11 10:17:42 PM  
After looking at the graph, all I can say is that Americans are idiots when it comes to science. Throw up a graph showing the number of scientists who believe/don't believe that e=mc2 or f=ma and you'll see that the graph doesn't show what you think it shows. Also, consensus does not equal correct. Pick up any scientific journal and you'll find articles which disprove or at least call into serious question ideas that have passed peer review and established as correct. If you're not a skeptic, you're not a scientist.
 
2012-12-11 10:19:03 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: SevenizGud: common sense is an oxymoron: No matter how many times they're shot down, they just keep repeating the same tired arguments, except that sevenizgud did change the starting point for his "there is no warming" graph once the actual mean temperature exceeded his previous cherry-picked starting point.

You lying piece of shiat. I changed my starting point because it was a link to woodfortrees, which is now defunct, not because the analysis is any different.

But feel free to keep lying your lying lies through your lying liars teeth you lying liar of lies.


Touchy this evening, ain't we, ya cherry-pickin' loser.


What makes you think I'm touchy you dog-raping cancer on humanity?
 
2012-12-11 10:19:12 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.


Find me one person who says that the climate is not changing. Just one.
 
2012-12-11 10:21:06 PM  

brap: wxboy: The surge from Sandy wasn't really nearly as much about higher sea levels, but the shear size of the storm. Just nowhere for the surge to go but inland.
 
I thought it wasn't the size so much as it was the motion of the ocean.  Did Bernard "Needledick" Mason lie to me?


Actually, as a meteorologist, I can tell you that it was the direction of the storm that had everything to do with the surge. If you google dynamic fetch it'll explain it. It's pretty interesting actually, but difficult to accurately model.
 
2012-12-11 10:21:47 PM  

SevenizGud: common sense is an oxymoron: Why move the goalposts unless you're losing the game?

Uhm, no goalposts were moved. The same HADCRUT3 analysis that I showed previously still holds exactly as it did before.

The only difference is the woodfortrees graphics generator is down because the website is now defunct.

But please, do pretend that the data is now different, and suggest ulterior motive instead of, you know, knowing what the fark you are talking about.


You lying piece of shiat. For months you posted a graph that started in 1998, and went on and on about 'no warming for 15 years'. And now you post a graph that starts in 2002, and go on and on about 'no warming for 10+ years' and you have the balls to say that those two are exactly the same thing?*

I know you're trolling, because nobody could possibly be as utterly stupid as that makes you look.

I mean, unless you're just siting in a high chair somewhere drooling all over yourself, and someone typed this for you through facilitated communication. Someone who resents having to care for your dumb ass and wants everyone to point and laugh at you so they don't feel quite as miserable in your presence.


*At least, they are both wrong in exactly the same way, but don't let that stop you, I guess
 
2012-12-11 10:22:41 PM  

DrPainMD: 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.

Find me one person who says that the climate is not changing. Just one.


Sevenizgud? Or haven't you been reading the thread?
 
2012-12-11 10:26:59 PM  

ancker: Scientists develop theories then get paid enormous salaries . . .


Wanna guess how I know you have no idea what you're talking about?
 
2012-12-11 10:29:43 PM  

HighZoolander: You lying piece of shiat. For months you posted a graph that started in 1998, and went on and on about 'no warming for 15 years'. And now you post a graph that starts in 2002, and go on and on about 'no warming for 10+ years' and you have the balls to say that those two are exactly the same thing?*


Einstein, what I am saying is that if I posted the HADCRUT3 data from the same starting point as my prior graph it would STILL SHOW COOLING. The reason I don't show that graph is because it was a link from woodfortees, which is now a defunct website. So I can't use their graphic generator to link to.

Once again, for the thinking impaired:

THE HADCRUT3 DATA STILL SHOWS THE SAME COOLING from the time point I was showing in my previous graphics.

Damn you guys are thick.
 
2012-12-11 10:33:21 PM  
Climate Change: Real
Global Warming: Not Real

This should sum up OP's moronic post.
 
2012-12-11 10:35:50 PM  

GORDON: 24 out of 14k studies reject the idea of AWG?

Interesting, since it only takes 1 to disprove something.

Learn the scientific method, morans. Nothing is ever proven, only disproven.

The Theory of Evolution will collapse if if someone ever finds, "God was here" scrawled on some DNA or something. Only takes one piece of evidence,


1) Newton's laws of motion did not "collapse" after the Michelson-Morley experiment. They did have to be modified somewhat.

2) To be a Galileo, it isn't enough to be persecuted by the establishment. You also have to be right.

and there's plenty that disprove most "AWG is realz!" theories.

1) Then drag something out that hasn't been refuted a thousand times.

2) Only "most"?
 
2012-12-11 10:38:05 PM  

SevenizGud: HighZoolander: You lying piece of shiat. For months you posted a graph that started in 1998, and went on and on about 'no warming for 15 years'. And now you post a graph that starts in 2002, and go on and on about 'no warming for 10+ years' and you have the balls to say that those two are exactly the same thing?*

Einstein, what I am saying is that if I posted the HADCRUT3 data from the same starting point as my prior graph it would STILL SHOW COOLING. The reason I don't show that graph is because it was a link from woodfortees, which is now a defunct website. So I can't use their graphic generator to link to.

Once again, for the thinking impaired:

THE HADCRUT3 DATA STILL SHOWS THE SAME COOLING from the time point I was showing in my previous graphics.

Damn you guys are thick.


And from almost any other point it shows the SAME WARMING that you somehow fail to recognize.

You're like the guy standing in front of his house as it burns down and thinks "my back is cold, I should go inside and get my jacket"


/bolded for relative truth
 
2012-12-11 10:40:37 PM  

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

[thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]

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


Do you think that lying changes the weather? You're stupid.
 
2012-12-11 10:47:15 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: SevenizGud: common sense is an oxymoron: No matter how many times they're shot down, they just keep repeating the same tired arguments, except that sevenizgud did change the starting point for his "there is no warming" graph once the actual mean temperature exceeded his previous cherry-picked starting point.

You lying piece of shiat. I changed my starting point because it was a link to woodfortrees, which is now defunct, not because the analysis is any different.

But feel free to keep lying your lying lies through your lying liars teeth you lying liar of lies.


Touchy this evening, ain't we, ya cherry-pickin' loser.


Not sure if you're aware, but chuckufarlie and sevenisgud (and nicksteal) are the same person. They're alts. There may be more in this thread, but I haven't discovered them yet (and I'm not even trying or keeping track or anything).
 
2012-12-11 10:47:31 PM  

gilgigamesh: Cythraul: SlothB77: [thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]

Time magazine is now the authority on global climate?

He was going to post that cover he saw from Highlights magazine, but he couldn't find it.


Try looking in the tree.
 
2012-12-11 10:51:04 PM  

HighZoolander: You're like the guy standing in front of his house as it burns down and thinks "my back is cold, I should go inside and get my jacket


Actually, I'm more like the guy who posts a graphic from NASA showing no warming from 2002-2012, and then, when some tard comes along and suggests that I changed from HADCRUT3 from 1997 (not 1998 like you graphic-reading-impaired dolts keep saying) to 2002 GISS because the HADCRUT3 data for the last 15 years like I had been posting no longer works, I post the last 15 years of HADCRUT3 data:


1997 0.459 0.496 0.468 0.533 0.352
1998 0.492 0.756 0.548 0.647 0.596 0.606 0.671 0.647 0.393 0.42 0.351 0.444 0.548
1999 0.37 0.552 0.294 0.315 0.233 0.263 0.27 0.236 0.267 0.228 0.21 0.327 0.297
2000 0.206 0.361 0.331 0.45 0.241 0.234 0.255 0.339 0.32 0.194 0.15 0.164 0.271
2001 0.324 0.286 0.487 0.43 0.39 0.413 0.453 0.506 0.404 0.378 0.506 0.321 0.408
2002 0.598 0.611 0.609 0.445 0.443 0.474 0.479 0.427 0.412 0.358 0.393 0.328 0.465
2003 0.525 0.441 0.425 0.417 0.437 0.442 0.455 0.525 0.52 0.566 0.428 0.523 0.475
2004 0.504 0.571 0.51 0.494 0.323 0.347 0.369 0.416 0.446 0.478 0.526 0.376 0.447
2005 0.461 0.38 0.499 0.534 0.481 0.512 0.536 0.509 0.513 0.508 0.483 0.37 0.482
2006 0.319 0.448 0.38 0.37 0.338 0.438 0.444 0.493 0.422 0.48 0.445 0.523 0.425
2007 0.61 0.509 0.438 0.472 0.373 0.384 0.407 0.364 0.412 0.367 0.269 0.215 0.402
2008 0.053 0.192 0.449 0.271 0.278 0.308 0.417 0.395 0.376 0.443 0.393 0.327 0.325
2009 0.387 0.374 0.374 0.417 0.407 0.508 0.515 0.544 0.473 0.442 0.448 0.427 0.443
2010 0.489 0.481 0.583 0.571 0.516 0.541 0.542 0.485 0.396 0.404 0.464 0.267 0.478
2011 0.194 0.259 0.322 0.408 0.329 0.431 0.466 0.445 0.368 0.358 0.258 0.243 0.34
2012 0.217 0.193 0.305 0.481 0.475 0.477 0.448 0.512 0.515 0.486


So eat some HADCRUT3 data, biatch.
 
2012-12-11 10:53:26 PM  

mgshamster: Not sure if you're aware, but chuckufarlie and sevenisgud (and nicksteal) are the same person. They're alts. There may be more in this thread, but I haven't discovered them yet (and I'm not even trying or keeping track or anything).


Not sure if you are aware by mgshamster and bevets and tatsuma are the same person. Just alts.

It's no wonder you are a warmingista, you are about as smart as a slime-mold.
 
2012-12-11 10:59:32 PM  

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: chuckufarlie:
So you are saying that a paper debunked comments made originally by the IPCC. That is interesting.


The paper deflates over-inflated concerns on your part. If the IPCC wrung its hands over old climate data, then, yea, fark hem. What, you think I should kiss the butt of any group instead of paying attention to numerous studies and being able to view, measure and model data myself?

Here's a challenge to you. Get the temperature data that the Berkeley group has, and show how it cannot be used to model the data as presented in their publications. In other words Specifically by naming actual data points and model parameters tell us where they are going wrong.

If you cannot do that, and all you have is some vague unfounded opinion, then what are YOU doing here?

Wow, you talk a big game.

The temperature data is based on stations that were not installed until the 1980s. Do you deny that?

The temperature data is based on stations that were in isolated areas that have now been developed. Do you deny that?

The temperature data prior to 1850 is based on proxy data. Do you deny that?

The Vostok Ice Core Samples indicate that increases in CO2 have always followed temperature increases. Do you deny that?

Recent data suggests CO2 increased first, actually ...Have some data.



Printing some fact you read and following it with "Do you Deny that?" is rhretorically kind of cute, I suppose, but it's not an argument.
Further nobody serious is claiming there hasn't been an enormous amount of data published on climate change, the important argument, (which most climate change enthusiasts don't seem to eager to discuss) is whether the enormous sums of money proposed to "combat" it would be worth the expenditure.

For myself, I don't have the expertise to evaluate the peer reviewed papers, but based on my experience and common sense, I am very skeptical of the notion that transferring billions of dollars from private to gov't hands will provide the desired results. (See the Itdanman44 cartoon above)
 
2012-12-11 11:01:33 PM  

pornopose: brap: wxboy: The surge from Sandy wasn't really nearly as much about higher sea levels, but the shear size of the storm. Just nowhere for the surge to go but inland.
 
I thought it wasn't the size so much as it was the motion of the ocean.  Did Bernard "Needledick" Mason lie to me?

Actually, as a meteorologist, I can tell you that it was the direction of the storm that had everything to do with the surge. If you google dynamic fetch it'll explain it. It's pretty interesting actually, but difficult to accurately model.


As a meteorologist, can you tell me when hurricanes started coming around with shears? Having lived through more than my share, I know they spin off tornadoes, water spouts, and other forms of mayhem, but who the ***** is giving them scissors!?! That is insane! Can't you meteorologists put a stop to this insult to humanity?

/yes, I know you're not wxboy.
 
2012-12-11 11:02:51 PM  

mgshamster: common sense is an oxymoron: SevenizGud: common sense is an oxymoron: No matter how many times they're shot down, they just keep repeating the same tired arguments, except that sevenizgud did change the starting point for his "there is no warming" graph once the actual mean temperature exceeded his previous cherry-picked starting point.

You lying piece of shiat. I changed my starting point because it was a link to woodfortrees, which is now defunct, not because the analysis is any different.

But feel free to keep lying your lying lies through your lying liars teeth you lying liar of lies.


Touchy this evening, ain't we, ya cherry-pickin' loser.

Not sure if you're aware, but chuckufarlie and sevenisgud (and nicksteal) are the same person. They're alts. There may be more in this thread, but I haven't discovered them yet (and I'm not even trying or keeping track or anything).


I admitted that I was nicksteel but I am not sevenisgud, And I have not used nicksteel in a long time so I really do not see what difference that makes. Maybe you just are not smart enough to realize that it means nothing that I have an old user name.
 
2012-12-11 11:04:03 PM  

Agent019: Climate Change: Real
Global Warming: Not Real

This should sum up OP's moronic post.


speaking of morons; how are you doing.

AGW is not real, moron.
 
2012-12-11 11:08:59 PM  
Why even bother arguing anymore? It's obvious which side the money is on which is the same one it's always on; the one that wins. So anyone who asks the question need do only one thing: wait. Because we're going to find out anyway, whether we like it or not.
 
2012-12-11 11:14:21 PM  

ancker: Ambitwistor:

Pitabred:

Clearly neither of you read my previous post (the one with the graph) that would have set the tone for my contributions for this thread.


I concede your point. :)

(I did read it, but didn't notice you were the same person.)
 
2012-12-11 11:23:16 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...


Yeah dude, that's exactly what scientists do. They never question their data and never talk about uncertainties.

Do you even know how they estimate years in the core layers??

Do you?

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...

There are a number of methods to develop an age model for an ice core. They drill cores in relatively high and consistent precipitation areas (though this may change over time); they count seasonal layers; they do radioisotopic dating of the contents of the layers; they cross-check against known strata (volcanic events that show up in the ice cores that have been independently dated); and when possible they compare to cores or other proxies in different locations under different climatic conditions (matching features in the data). Independently, no method is sufficient; together, they provide reasonable age control, though of course there are still error bars on the dates.
 
m00
2012-12-11 11:24:02 PM  
www.scotese.com

You guys realize the earth is the coldest it's ever been. Ever. Historically speaking, it's freakishly cold

In the early Eocene which was only 50 million years ago, there were alligators in swamps on the north pole. Plus, the tropics weren't that much warmer than it is today. There wasn't any ice at all on Antarctica at all until 30 million years ago. Keep in mind, the continents were almost exactly in the same configuration they were today (couple degrees difference)
 
2012-12-11 11:25:09 PM  
I just want to jump in here and say BOOBIES!!!
 
2012-12-11 11:26:49 PM  

m00: [www.scotese.com image 538x1499]

You guys realize the earth is the coldest it's ever been. Ever. Historically speaking, it's freakishly cold

In the early Eocene which was only 50 million years ago, there were alligators in swamps on the north pole. Plus, the tropics weren't that much warmer than it is today. There wasn't any ice at all on Antarctica at all until 30 million years ago. Keep in mind, the continents were almost exactly in the same configuration they were today (couple degrees difference)


I hope your check from Big Oil clears, you disgusting pig.
 
2012-12-11 11:29:17 PM  

spmkk: This is why it's a political issue as well as a scientific one. It's not because oil executives value their salaries over the human race. It's not because Republicans hate the earth. It's not because ignoramuses reject science. It's because people justifiably question the value of trying to solve an environmental problem of uncertain and greatly hyperbolized consequences by creating a series of definitively catastrophic (but questionably effective) economic ones in its place.


You should have a watch of this...a very calm and reasoned argument that addresses your exact concern. Oh, and don't let the title of the video scare you off...just watch it.

Link
 
2012-12-11 11:30:30 PM  
Was Kevin Bacon in Footloose?
 
2012-12-11 11:32:33 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Ambitwistor: omeganuepsilon: 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.

If you're going to dismiss an entire field of science by default, without knowing anything about it, and you're not willing to inform yourself, then you're not a real skeptic. You're just being contrary.

Who is dismissing? Who said anything about dismissing?


turnerdude69, who you may recall I was responding to when you jumped into this conversation. He made the claim that nobody knows why the planet warms out of a glacial period, and implicitly that temperature records aren't trustworthy because they can be manipulated.

Then for some reason, after inserting yourself into this discussion, you wanted to make it all about you (and with a pathetic insinuation equating me to a religious zealot thrown in for good measure):

It sounds as if you want to Believe I'm a flat out denier, operating on Belief of my own.
tsk tsk tsk
 
2012-12-11 11:33:25 PM  

m00: You guys realize the earth is the coldest it's ever been. Ever.


Colder than Snowball Earth? I think not.

But anyway, granting that we're in an ice age, what's your point?
 
m00
2012-12-11 11:34:25 PM  
m00: [www.scotese.com image 538x1499]

You guys realize the earth is the coldest it's ever been. Ever. Historically speaking, it's freakishly cold

In the early Eocene which was only 50 million years ago, there were alligators in swamps on the north pole. Plus, the tropics weren't that much warmer than it is today. There wasn't any ice at all on Antarctica at all until 30 million years ago. Keep in mind, the continents were almost exactly in the same configuration they were today (couple degrees difference)

I hope your check from Big Oil clears, you disgusting pig.


What's more interesting than what is causing global warming, is what caused global cooling from the Eocene. Within a couple dozen million years, we went from alligators in the north pole to the "ice house" climate we had today. Must have been man made, right?

The only thing we have to fear about global warming is the hair-brained ideas (lets spray crap in the atmosphere!) our politicians might come up with to reverse it.
 
2012-12-11 11:37:44 PM  

spmkk: It's because people justifiably question the value of trying to solve an environmental problem of uncertain and greatly hyperbolized consequences by creating a series of definitively catastrophic (but questionably effective) economic ones in its place.


Funny, actual economists don't agree about the "definitively catastrophic" part. In fact, they were the ones who recommended carbon pricing as a policy instrument. What's also funny is how people froth at the mouth at how "hyperbolized" global warming is, but never question how hyperbolized is the supposed certain economic doom that any conceivable climate mitigation policy would bring.
 
m00
2012-12-11 11:38:10 PM  

Ambitwistor: m00: You guys realize the earth is the coldest it's ever been. Ever.

Colder than Snowball Earth? I think not.

But anyway, granting that we're in an ice age, what's your point?


My point is, if you look at the graph can you imagine someone pointing to the very last pixel up at the top and saying "look, look there's man-made global warming." I'm all for reducing our impact to the environment in which we live, and I think it's foolish and short-sighted to engage in stripping the earth of resources for use by our generation. But it's insane to think of the earth as somehow static, and that we're disrupting this careful balance of nature.
 
2012-12-11 11:39:29 PM  

crazydave023: Was Kevin Bacon in Footloose?


You're thinking of Randy Quaid
 
2012-12-11 11:43:37 PM  

m00: What's more interesting than what is causing global warming, is what caused global cooling from the Eocene. Within a couple dozen million years, we went from alligators in the north pole to the "ice house" climate we had today. Must have been man made, right?


Oh gee, another Farker who thinks that it's insightful to point out that the climate has changed in the past. I think that makes a couple dozen in this thread alone.

Interestingly, by the way, the Eocene hyperthermals provide some of the best paleo evidence for the warming power of a large injection of greenhouse gases.

But it's insane to think of the earth as somehow static, and that we're disrupting this careful balance of nature.

Nobody thinks the climate is static. If the Earth were going to warm (or cool) by several degrees in the next century due to natural causes, people would be equally concerned and would also be looking at ways to prevent it. (Of course, the proposed solutions would differ depending on the nature of the cause.)
 
2012-12-11 11:46:19 PM  
Even the political debate has moved on from "is the climate changing" to "how much of it is human-controllable" and "how can we actually achieve said control".

We don't really have the specifics quite down yet, especially since the politicians have fastened onto the CO2 component of the problem like a gaggle of goddamned morons because they're obsessed with everything being a one-variable problem (because, again, morons).

So, yeah, anyone denying climate change in itself is behind the curve by a couple decades even for a layman.

//Even the CO2 portion of the problem has been approached solely from the angle of reducing auto and industrial emissions, which is pretty goddamned stupid as well. The biggest factor we can alter is probably the ecosystem of the oceans at this point, and second is probably fiddling with surface reflectivity and on-land ecology. As many scientists have pointed out, it's not really possible to completely correct even just the CO2 factor to stable solely on tech emission grounds.

//We've needed to start dealing with the oceans the way we deal with on-land forests for about a century now, hopefully this is the kick in the pants we need to actually stop dicking about on it.
 
2012-12-11 11:53:06 PM  

Jim_Callahan: The biggest factor we can alter is probably the ecosystem of the oceans at this point

population, clearly

Zero population, zero influence on climate change.

Which is just another proof that NOBODY takes this seriously. If it were that big a deal the gubmint would be using tax code to enforce behavior, just like they do with EVERYTHING else.
 
2012-12-11 11:54:26 PM  
I just point and laugh and call these people "ostriches"

Theyre the same tyoes who a few hundred years ago clung to their belief that the world was flat and theyll be goddamned if some quack geographer or scientist was going to tell them differently.
 
2012-12-11 11:56:12 PM  

Jim_Callahan: //Even the CO2 portion of the problem has been approached solely from the angle of reducing auto and industrial emissions, which is pretty goddamned stupid as well.


Actually electrical generation emissions are probably the biggest long-term concern.

The biggest factor we can alter is probably the ecosystem of the oceans at this point, and second is probably fiddling with surface reflectivity and on-land ecology.

Mucking around with terrestrial or ocean ecology on the scale necessary to address climate change would be terribly unwise.
 
2012-12-12 12:04:25 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: GoldDude: But if "climate change" is used as a reason why huge sums of money should be transferred from "rich countries" to "poor countries", then sorry but count me out of your global Robin Hood scheme

Why? You sound greedy.


Funny thing. I was reading The Economist and apparently Chinese Climate Change Skeptics believe that global warming is a rich country conspiracy to prevent developing countries from industrializing and getting rich.

Aren't conspiracies convenient? They can justify anything you want to do or don't want to do! Without any proof! or evidence even!
 
2012-12-12 12:15:03 AM  

Ambitwistor: Who is dismissing? Who said anything about dismissing?

turnerdude69


Then reply to him with the whole "dismissing" argument, not me.

I quoted you originally with:

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

(link is to my post, obviously, so you can see my issue with the line)

I later summed up my reply differently because some other wingnut didn't understand the concept, I'll paste it below:

omeganuepsilon: There is no law that states that skeptical people have to follow to a conclusion every little curiosity they may have.

It runs counter to civilization itself, which has only come to to where it stands today because people specialize in just a few skills, and then barter/buy whatever else they need to live and enjoy their off time.



Now if you want to converse with me on that subject, do so. When I quoted you, I quoted a specific statement about your personal and creative rules that skeptics must live by, or some such. That part that I quoted was patently ridiculous, and really, the only point I'm discussing with you as such.

Pretending as if I'm some other poster you have a grudge against and attributing his arguments to me will win you no points.

Of course, Poe's Law and such. If you just want to break every logical fallacy in the book and troll people into oblivion, hey, whatever floats your boat. I know you've ceased to have any credibility as a rational human being in my book, so I won't be replying unless you start acting like a rational adult again.

Ambitwistor: when you jumped into this conversation


Ambitwistor: Then for some reason, after inserting yourself into this discussion


Welcome to Fark! Anything you post can be quoted by others. It's the reason we're here, discussion with random people at random times. If you want privacy, I suggest you go elsewhere.
 
2012-12-12 12:17:25 AM  

m00: [www.scotese.com image 538x1499]

You guys realize the earth is the coldest it's ever been. Ever. Historically speaking, it's freakishly cold

In the early Eocene which was only 50 million years ago, there were alligators in swamps on the north pole. Plus, the tropics weren't that much warmer than it is today. There wasn't any ice at all on Antarctica at all until 30 million years ago. Keep in mind, the continents were almost exactly in the same configuration they were today (couple degrees difference)



Hey, it's GeneralJim's old graph stood on end.

It was junk then, and it's still junk.
 
2012-12-12 12:19:28 AM  

m00: Ambitwistor: m00: You guys realize the earth is the coldest it's ever been. Ever.

Colder than Snowball Earth? I think not.

But anyway, granting that we're in an ice age, what's your point?

My point is, if you look at the graph can you imagine someone pointing to the very last pixel up at the top and saying "look, look there's man-made global warming." I'm all for reducing our impact to the environment in which we live, and I think it's foolish and short-sighted to engage in stripping the earth of resources for use by our generation. But it's insane to think of the earth as somehow static, and that we're disrupting this careful balance of nature.



It's also insane to think that a 40% increase in a known greenhouse gas over a couple of centuries will have no effect on climate.
 
2012-12-12 12:19:42 AM  
watch the movie cool it and gtfo
 
2012-12-12 12:21:11 AM  
Team Climate Reality=100
Trolls=0
 
2012-12-12 12:23:28 AM  

m00: The only thing we have to fear about global warming is the hair-brained ideas


that it doesn't exist and that it isn't caused by man.

In other words, we should avoid disinformation like yours.
 
2012-12-12 12:24:03 AM  

h4b1t: watch the movie cool it and gtfo


http://coolit-themovie.com/
 
2012-12-12 12:24:10 AM  

m00: But it's insane to think of the earth as somehow static, and that we're disrupting this careful balance of nature.


*points and laughs*
 
2012-12-12 12:24:36 AM  
Need to distinguish human-caused from natural warming? Have I got a tool for you!

It's called a climate model. It's especially good at modelling things we understand well, like some of those natural causes you keep hearing about. All you do is plug everything you know about how the system works into a supercomputer as a set of equatons and add and subtract those "natural" and "human" causes to see how they alter the magntude of the effects when you remove the various causes.

Funny thing: when you do this, removing the anthropogenic factors such as fossil fuel burning, deforestation, agriculture, land use, cities, concrete making, etc., the model fails to model the current data on climate change using only natural causes. But when you put the human factors back in, bingo! you get the last two hundred years of climate change with a remarkable degree of agreement between the historical data and the climate model! Huzzah!

And every model you run leads to better understanding and improved models--it's like Darwinian evolution of climate models in a supercomputer! Yaaaaay!

Of course, to deny that humans can alter climate, you have to ignore all of this evidence plus all of our understanding of the greenhouse effect and everything else we understand about the atmosphere, the oceans, land use, forests, etc.

The more accurate the models become, the more precisely they reconstruct the data and the more data we get, the more we can project the models into the future with different premises so that we can calculate what we need to do to limit future climate change.

Ta da! The Aristocrats of Denial. Lord Monckton, Lord Lawson and sundry Press Barons.

It is clear from these models (as well as from the data itself) that the Sun, for example, is NOT driving climate change because removing it from, or adding it to a model doesn't reflect the real world data. And the real world data simply doesn't reflect the timing or scale of things like sunspots or solar flares--they don't sync up. These two different lines of reasoning support each other: the Sun is not changing enough to be responsible for the observed changes in climate, and the timing and magnitude of the changes in solar energy output is wrong. Also, if the Sun were causing warming, you'd expect to see an effect in the upper atmosphere, where it has actually been cooling if anything. In reality, however, the warming has been taking place at ground level rather than up in the Sun above the clouds that reflect so much of the Sun's light.

In short, you are begging the question (a logical fallacy) of whether climate change can or can not be attributed to humans. Our fingerprints are all over it. It is not the Sun, it is not cosmic rays, it is not volcanoes, it is not natural cycles--all of these things play a minor role, but the biggest role is human activities that release greenhouse gases or suppress sequestration of the same.
 
2012-12-12 12:29:56 AM  

give me doughnuts: You mean only 99.8% of the peer-reviewed articles on Global Warming support the lies?

And you Warmies claim to have a scientific concensus. HA!


Well if you look at the HADCRUT data : http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/temperature-trends-fo r-the-last-180-months-hadcrut/ you might disagree with the warmists
 
Displayed 50 of 954 comments

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report