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  
•       •       •

37668 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
 
2012-12-13 05:27:47 PM

Farking Canuck: Baryogenesis: Don't bother with omeganuepsilon, though, he's "just asking questions" and a "skeptic" yet somehow you'll never have enough information to change his mind and he won't read any links you give him.

Yeah this is why I don't 'respectfully answer his questions'. He plays the "I'm just asking reasonable questions" card but time has shown over and over that he has no interest in the answers. It is just another attempt to seed unwarranted doubt from the anti-science crowd.

I feel like Dr. Azimov wrote this just for omeganuepsilon and his ilk:

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
― Isaac Asimov


So, has Cananananda started to out smoke stack scrubbers on their power plants yet?

Or was Acid Rain just another non issue once the US jumped through the hoops?
 
2012-12-13 05:52:53 PM

HighZoolander: Ok, so you go from failing to understand any downside to eliminating fish from the ocean to being able to confidently assert things about the science of global warming in no time flat.


Your possibly poor reading comprehension led you to think I meant "Thousands die from starvation due to lack of fish...no big deal"?

I'm discussing the downside, not denying it. All I said is that it was not an insurmountable obstacle.

You're seemingly one of those that fabricates statements so you can have the argument that you want instead of what's actually here.

Confidently assert what about the science of global warming? Citations please. Not another fabricated statement that you want to argue against, I want to see what I'm supposedly calling into question in my words as they appear in this thread. Go ahead.

____
Aahh, Barry showed up. Links I don't even read indeed, even though I, well, directly quote them.

omeganuepsilon: And on that note, from your link:
Supplying over three billion people with at least 15 percent of their average animal protein intake.


I didn't even deny the article.

That's pretty much the reason I only saw his remark in someone else's post, another rage addicted zealot who makes shiat up whole cloth.
 
2012-12-13 06:10:28 PM

omeganuepsilon: Confidently assert what about the science of global warming? Citations please.


omeganuepsilon: Now it's Global Warming(as a generic term), and there is no real Best By: date. No time to be proven wrong, not really. It's the ultimate end of days scenerio for them. The sciences even lend some credibility to it.


Well ok, you have a point - what you said here really just made no sense at all. I guess that's better?

Baryogenesis: omeganuepsilon: We're presently following an ice age, there's no where to go but get warmer. A perspective of decades is pointless because we're on that upcurve. The planet, in a majority of the time in that larger picture, has no ice caps. The sky is not falling, we're simply on schedule.


But then here you are after all asserting things as if you know something about climate.

omeganuepsilon: Is the reef itself dependent on temperature?


Here you're asking a question that a 5th grader could answer (maybe even without looking it up on the internet). Maybe you forgot all your expertise from the prior thread?

So which is it - do you have no farking clue how coral works, or are you expert enough to assert that the current climate change is 'right on schedule'?
 
2012-12-13 06:55:18 PM

HighZoolander: omeganuepsilon: Now it's Global Warming(as a generic term), and there is no real Best By: date. No time to be proven wrong, not really. It's the ultimate end of days scenerio for them. The sciences even lend some credibility to it.

Well ok, you have a point - what you said here really just made no sense at all. I guess that's better?


Proven, as in hard evidence. Sure, in theory if we cut emissions drastically, in time we'll see a divergence that show's the models and such to be accurate(something put forth by a warmer up-thread somewhere). A year, ten years, twenty? Can you base a conclusion on 20 years? I seem to recall it's been mentioned in this thread that we cannot, that it's just too small of a sample to account for normal fluctuations.

That's even IF we manage to cut emissions.

So yeah, no proof in sight, a lot of waiting needed. It's like the religious claiming that when we can't disprove their religion, therefore God. IF I theorize the Rapture II, you cannot prove that wrong, you can place a wager, sure, but you cannot prove it until after that date. If I place that date 200 years away, it's a win win, everyone alive today will be dead by that time.

I am not arguing against the science, I simply don't Believe it out of hand. I don't dismiss it either, as much as everyone wants to Believe I am doing.

What I DO, is call into question some of the things people put forth on fark. Like that 15% number put forth above, the actual information wasn't quite what the article said and was misleading.

Some moron's "fingerprint" analogy quite a ways up thread.

Now, harranguing me over past threads that may have been weeks or months ago, that's something else. Am I doing that here? Did I make any "right on schedule" claims to actually support "science is a lie"(which I didn't even do then)? I implied we "could" be, much as I have in the past. And what did that yield in this thread? An honest answer from a warmer, intelligent and rational thought explaining it. I even gave props, and referred to that person as cool beans.

If a warmer wants to be heard and not questioned, and generally speaking, believed, THAT is what will get the job done. Stomping in like Barry did up a few posts, making shiat up, labeling anyone who even looks at the thread the wrong way as the devil incarnate, does the warmer party no favors. Even you did that, with the 5th grader comment.

That's what strikes me as funny.... Who really remembers 5th grade at all, aside from scattered fragments? 6th graders probably, but even by 18 years, a lot of specific memories are fading.

At 34 I can barely remember my 5th grade teacher's face, much less what was specifically studied. Also, education, as much as our moronic leaders would want it, school's all don't teach the same things and only those things, it's far from that supposed ideal "standardized" in that regard. It's quite possible that in k-12, I(and countless others) never studied the coral reef at all.

Sure, math, social studies, english, gym/phys-ed, pretty sure there was no coral reef class. Sure, there was science, but that covered everything from tree rings to clouds to plants biology to experiments with baking soda and water. And honestly speaking, knowing the fragility of the coral reef, it's ideal temperature window, is more or less 1degree C...that's not exactly gradeschool fodder. Middle or high school maybe, but by then you're taking more focused electives.
 
2012-12-13 07:54:43 PM
And there's the rest of omega's schtick. You'll answer his questions, but he'll downplay or ignore them because they don't meet his arbitrary and as yet unstated threshold for acceptance. And when you tire of explaining it and call him out for being dishonest, he'll pull the "why is everyone so rude" red herring so he doesn't have to defend his position. Please check out the threads I linked earlier for confirmation.

Here's a simple question that any skeptic should be able to answer. What evidence would you need to convince you AGW is happening?
 
2012-12-13 08:05:05 PM

omeganuepsilon: That's why there are SO many warmers(again, simply a generic term).


It's not a term. It's what deniers use to make it appear as if the overwhelming consensus of science doesn't compliment what's been discussed in tfa.

I swear for someone who is so obsessed with being polite in this thread, your posts are markedly inflammatory.
 
2012-12-13 08:07:02 PM

omeganuepsilon: And honestly speaking, knowing the fragility of the coral reef, it's ideal temperature window, is more or less 1degree C...that's not exactly gradeschool fodder.



Seriously? Is that really too hard?
 
2012-12-13 08:20:46 PM

HighZoolander: omeganuepsilon: And honestly speaking, knowing the fragility of the coral reef, it's ideal temperature window, is more or less 1degree C...that's not exactly gradeschool fodder.


Seriously? Is that really too hard?


Yeah. It is, especially at this point as you already handed me the information and we discussed it. You could have led with that, that would have been one thing. But biatching about it several posts later...going out of your way further to do the lmgtfy link.. That's the sort of petty BS i'm talking about. Yeah, I'm the shifty one who goes off on tangents and rants, all me.
 
2012-12-13 08:31:52 PM

omeganuepsilon: I am not arguing against the science, I simply don't Believe it out of hand. I don't dismiss it either, as much as everyone wants to Believe I am doing.



Then perhaps you can answer some questions:

How does increasing CO2 not cause warming?

What other possible factors correlate with the observed warming? Yes, I know "correlation does not equal causation," but a lack of correlation is strong evidence against a causal relationship.

Why are so many deniers obsessed with one proposed solution, characterizing it as anti-American, one-world socialism, while ignoring other possible courses of action?
 
2012-12-13 09:25:36 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: How does increasing CO2 not cause warming?


I thought increased CO2 did cause warming. Now I'm confused.
IIRC... Has to do with IR absorption / emitting. Because the higher and cooler layers of atmosphere don't emit heat as rapidly, heat builds below that.
Visible light absorption leads to increased heat directly on surfaces, which also heats the lower atmosphere.

common sense is an oxymoron: What other possible factors correlate with the observed warming?


Um, human population at large? ..and other green house gasses..

Notable effects, but nothing steadily rising in correlation:
The interplay of visible light and cloud cover plays a large role here, though I'm unaware as to records concerning that. You can see volcano eruptions causing a short term cooling period due to obscuring the light with the ash clouds.(unaware of what gets vented in volcanoes, though)

common sense is an oxymoron: Why are so many deniers obsessed with one proposed solution, characterizing it as anti-American, one-world socialism, while ignoring other possible courses of action?


Can't say as I can answer that one. I mentioned up thread specifically that deniers argument's aren't all that. I'd question some of their purported data but their arguments tend to fall apart all on their own or are already debunked in large numbers within the same thread.

What I've asked of the warmers were pointed questions about specifically worded comments from that individual, mostly layman's questions and statements an analogies that were...flawed, or simplified to the point if uselessness. I've taken a much different stance on GW than in past threads, if you've read this one you probably missed or don't remember my posts here.

[Disclaimers: warmers and deniers are generic terms, saying "they're not terms" is ridiculous. They're descriptive of that person's general view. That's all. Whid can suck a big one.]
 
2012-12-13 10:53:01 PM

Baryogenesis: Frederick: whidbey: Frederick: Do you have trouble with reading comprehension?

You do. You keep using words like "debatable." Did you have trouble reading TFA? Maybe you should eye the pie chart posted earlier. My favorite flavor. Cherry red.

I used "debatable" exactly one time. You ignored my question entirely. I dont think you even understand what I've written. Are you suggesting there is a pie chart with the level of influence humans have had on climate change? Because I find that doubtful.

Not a pie chart

Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate
From that link:

[chriscolose.files.wordpress.com image 490x391]


Here's another way to put it:
[cdn.greenoptions.com image 594x459] 

Here's another way to put it: "It is thus extremely likely (>95% probability) that the greenhouse gas induced warming since the mid-twentieth century was larger than the observed rise in global average temperatures, and extremely likely that anthropogenic forcings were by far the dominant cause of warming. The natural forcing contribution since 1950 is near zero."

And again for the visual learners (black line is the observed temperature):

[www.skepticalscience.com image 850x309]


Those guesses illustrated in the graphs are absolutely debatable. And they are by definition guesses. The best you can say is "educated guesses". If you are unwilling to acknowledge that the science of determining AGW is based on guessing then you are the one who does not understand scientific method.

Time will tell how accurate the model is; not insistence.
 
2012-12-13 10:53:08 PM

omeganuepsilon: [Disclaimers: warmers and deniers are generic terms, saying "they're not terms" is ridiculous. They're descriptive of that person's general view. That's all. Whid can suck a big one.]


No it isn't "all."

There are no "warmers." It's insulting.

It's as asinine as insisting we acknowledge something so embarrassedly unscientific as Intelligent Design in order to "teach the controversy" alongside the regular curriculum.

Regarding man-made climate change, there are only deniers.
 
2012-12-13 11:04:25 PM

Frederick: Baryogenesis: Frederick: whidbey: Frederick: Do you have trouble with reading comprehension?

You do. You keep using words like "debatable." Did you have trouble reading TFA? Maybe you should eye the pie chart posted earlier. My favorite flavor. Cherry red.

I used "debatable" exactly one time. You ignored my question entirely. I dont think you even understand what I've written. Are you suggesting there is a pie chart with the level of influence humans have had on climate change? Because I find that doubtful.

Not a pie chart

Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate
From that link:

[chriscolose.files.wordpress.com image 490x391]


Here's another way to put it:
[cdn.greenoptions.com image 594x459] 

Here's another way to put it: "It is thus extremely likely (>95% probability) that the greenhouse gas induced warming since the mid-twentieth century was larger than the observed rise in global average temperatures, and extremely likely that anthropogenic forcings were by far the dominant cause of warming. The natural forcing contribution since 1950 is near zero."

And again for the visual learners (black line is the observed temperature):

[www.skepticalscience.com image 850x309]

Those guesses illustrated in the graphs are absolutely debatable. And they are by definition guesses. The best you can say is "educated guesses". If you are unwilling to acknowledge that the science of determining AGW is based on guessing then you are the one who does not understand scientific method.

Time will tell how accurate the model is; not insistence.


Yeah, ok dude. All those peer reviewed papers and the scientific method in general are just people guessing. That's how scientists developed computers too.
 
2012-12-13 11:08:37 PM

Slam1263: So, has Cananananda started to out smoke stack scrubbers on their power plants yet?

Or was Acid Rain just another non issue once the US jumped through the hoops?


I love it when idiots point to acid rain, y2k and the ozone layer as non-issues when, in reality, they are scientific and political success stories. The experts in the field warned of dangers and proposed solutions, politicians and companies heeded the warnings and implemented actions to mitigate the damages and all the costs associated with the damages.

This should be the case with AGW but the anti-science crowd took their cues from the big tobacco trials of the 70's and played the "you can never be 100% sure" card to delay any action. Now there has been much less mitigation than there should have been at this point and we will end up paying far more in the long run.

As for your badly worded question above ... I cannot speak for all of Canada but I can address the province of Ontario. We have reduced our coal use by 90% since 2003 and continue on a course of moving completely away from coal. We use hydro, nuclear, natural gas and wind to generate most of our electricity.

Did you have a point??
 
2012-12-13 11:15:30 PM

omeganuepsilon: common sense is an oxymoron: How does increasing CO2 not cause warming?

I thought increased CO2 did cause warming. Now I'm confused.
IIRC... Has to do with IR absorption / emitting. Because the higher and cooler layers of atmosphere don't emit heat as rapidly, heat builds below that.
Visible light absorption leads to increased heat directly on surfaces, which also heats the lower atmosphere.



One of the arguments by deniers is that CO2 is not responsible for warming and that other factors are responsible. But if you understand the basic concept, then what is it that you "don't believe out of hand"?


common sense is an oxymoron: What other possible factors correlate with the observed warming?

Um, human population at large? ..and other green house gasses..



Biomass, whether human or not, is carbon-neutral. If we weren't burning fossil fuels at an increasing rate, CO2 wouldn't be increasing either.

The other greenhouse gas of significance is methane, the atmospheric concentration of which is also increasing and which is also anthropogenic in nature.

Deniers have been attempting to shift the blame from anthropogenic emissions all along, yet nobody has come up with a verifiable alternative explanation which even comes close to accounting for the observed temperature changes.


Notable effects, but nothing steadily rising in correlation:
The interplay of visible light and cloud cover plays a large role here, though I'm unaware as to records concerning that. You can see volcano eruptions causing a short term cooling period due to obscuring the light with the ash clouds.(unaware of what gets vented in volcanoes, though)



The relationship between increased temperature and cloud cover is not well understood, and the available data give conflicting results (low clouds vs. high clouds, tropical vs. temperate latitudes).

Volcanic eruptions release minimal greenhouse gases (even the Pinatubo eruption had no noticeable effect on CO2 or methane levels). As you note, volcanic activity has a short-term cooling effect on the lower atmosphere as long as sufficient ash is present.

In either case, there is no indication that clouds, whether water/ice or ash, are responsible for warming.


common sense is an oxymoron: Why are so many deniers obsessed with one proposed solution, characterizing it as anti-American, one-world socialism, while ignoring other possible courses of action?

Can't say as I can answer that one. I mentioned up thread specifically that deniers argument's aren't all that. I'd question some of their purported data but their arguments tend to fall apart all on their own or are already debunked in large numbers within the same thread.

What I've asked of the warmers were pointed questions about specifically worded comments from that individual, mostly layman's questions and statements an analogies that were...flawed, or simplified to the point if uselessness. I've taken a much different stance on GW than in past threads, if you've read this one you probably missed or don't remember my posts here.

[Disclaimers: warmers and deniers are generic terms, saying "they're not terms" is ridiculous. They're descriptive of that person's general view. That's all. Whid can suck a big one.]



I guess my biggest complaint against what might be called "self-described rational skeptics" is that, all too often, any and all scientific evidence which is presented to them is either dismissed out of hand, "refuted" with the same old arguments that have been repeatedly debunked by multiple sources, or simply ignored.

I haven't kept track of your comments specifically (hell, I have a hard time keeping track of my own comments sometimes), but when someone says they "don't believe it out of hand," it raises the question of why current climatological theory is less believable than current theories with equal or lesser consensus in other fields.
 
2012-12-13 11:19:54 PM

Frederick: Those guesses illustrated in the graphs are absolutely debatable. And they are by definition guesses. The best you can say is "educated guesses". If you are unwilling to acknowledge that the science of determining AGW is based on guessing then you are the one who does not understand scientific method.

Time will tell how accurate the model is; not insistence.


Twenty years' worth of time has already shown that even the earlier models were quite accurate.
 
2012-12-13 11:43:58 PM

omeganuepsilon: HighZoolander: omeganuepsilon: And honestly speaking, knowing the fragility of the coral reef, it's ideal temperature window, is more or less 1degree C...that's not exactly gradeschool fodder.


Seriously? Is that really too hard?

Yeah. It is, especially at this point as you already handed me the information and we discussed it. You could have led with that, that would have been one thing. But biatching about it several posts later...going out of your way further to do the lmgtfy link.. That's the sort of petty BS i'm talking about. Yeah, I'm the shifty one who goes off on tangents and rants, all me.


When had I previously handed you the information about coral?


/oh, and welcometofark.jpg
 
2012-12-14 12:04:38 AM

omeganuepsilon: What I've asked of the warmers were pointed questions about specifically worded comments from that individual, mostly layman's questions and statements an analogies that were...flawed, or simplified to the point if uselessness. I've taken a much different stance on GW than in past threads, if you've read this one you probably missed or don't remember my posts here.


Whidbey's just a troll, he got his nose punched in a few threads ago when someone linked proof of his misogyny right after he insisted he had never made a misogynist remark, and now is trying to hide under the skirts of anyone that will tolerate him.

As for AGW, I'll believe it when the climatologists stop acting like their own science is one big hustle that nobody is allowed to question, and treating skeptics like hecklers at a snake-oil salesman pitch.

/how about they reduce their own emissions?
//oh right, they think identifying the problem means they are immune to having to adjust their own behavior
///sort of like how so many liberals think they have the right to be racist and misogynist, because they pointed out other peoples' racism and/or misogyny first
 
2012-12-14 12:19:34 AM
Somehow you seem more reasonable today than you used to. I can't quite put my finger on why though.


Hmm, maybe this is why:

Tatterdemalian: Doesn't really matter, even if global warming is real, the only tactic the environmentalists will let us use to stop it (extermination of most of the human race) is pretty much the same thing that global warming will do. Only difference is who gets to be chooser of the slain, and I'd rather that not be a human organization, simply because they tend to base their genocides on religious belief rather than natural selection.

/it's really a war between those who see global warming as an opportunity to impose their absolute moral authority over the entire world, and "deniers" who see it as a problem to be fixed regardless of religious beliefs



/you're still trolling though, right?
 
2012-12-14 12:32:16 AM

HighZoolander: you're still trolling though, right?


I'm expressing an opinion, so yeah, totes trollin.

/not necessarily MY opinion
//just one that's underrepresented
 
2012-12-14 12:45:52 AM

Tatterdemalian: As for AGW, I'll believe it when the climatologists stop acting like their own science is one big hustle that nobody is allowed to question, and treating skeptics like hecklers at a snake-oil salesman pitch.



How, exactly, are they doing so; and how is their attitude toward currently accepted theory any different from that of any other scientists regarding their fields of expertise?


/how about they reduce their own emissions?


How do you know whether they are or not? Or are you suggesting that climatologists (and only climatologists) should live in mud huts and eat roots and berries?


//oh right, they think identifying the problem means they are immune to having to adjust their own behavior
///sort of like how so many liberals think they have the right to be racist and misogynist, because they pointed out other peoples' racism and/or misogyny first



Ahhh, another Fark IndependentTM. That explains it.
 
2012-12-14 12:47:59 AM

Tatterdemalian: As for AGW, I'll believe it when the climatologists stop acting like their own science is one big hustle that nobody is allowed to question, and treating skeptics like hecklers at a snake-oil salesman pitch.


LOL

*plonk*
 
2012-12-14 01:01:08 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: One of the arguments by deniers is that CO2 is not responsible for warming and that other factors are responsible. But if you understand the basic concept, then what is it that you "don't believe out of hand"?


My Boobies in the thread was asking what the margin of error is in using proxies, which I come to read in various places as 90-95% confidence rate(even saw in one place where that's sort of an arbitrary number).

Other than that, something doesn't sit right with me about how it's all averaged, but I can't quite put my finger on it exactly. It sort of saps the precision from any given equation, which, when you're measuring temperature in tenths of a degree as an average for a month or a year, and reaching hundreds or thousands of years back from a handful of locations....and then comparing it with modern precision readings taken pretty much globally.

In that light, it could be that we've been a touch warmer in the past, but unable to document or measure it accurately, and as technology evolved, our precision got better.

I know the data points number in the millions for some studies, I just can't place faith in them. As a busy adult with a life and family, I don't have the time or resources to study the requisite things to become an expert and do the research myself.(as some claim is what every "real" skeptic does(addressed several times up thread))

Those are my only real misgivings. Niggling doubts. I'm big on science in general. I mean, computers are proof of concept, they operate with precision and literally at my fingertips. Physics, chemistry, all readily testable and historically reliable in an extreme. No consensus needed.

common sense is an oxymoron: Biomass, whether human or not, is carbon-neutral.


I wonder about that, as a curiosity.
I know the theory[LinkLink]

Sure, we're neutral globally, there is only so much carbon to go around, as it were, but is there not more cycled back into the air? Or would the sugary source release it anyways when it decomposes without being eaten?

Keep in mind this is just discussion, just a grasp at straws because you asked what else, and human population has risen fairly steeply. Like you said, correlation vs causation. I'm not implying cause, just that it happened.

common sense is an oxymoron: I haven't kept track of your comments specifically


Here's one specifically:

omeganuepsilon: brantgoose: Our fingerprints are all over it.

I've seen a broken window covered with finger prints and face prints from people leaning on it or using it to make funny faces. Does that mean that human's did it?

Isn't it possible that it was the wind(by itself or blowing debris), an earthquake, hail, or thermal expansion and too tight of a frame?



And of course, the point several have made in response to article itself. The pie chart. Majority does not dictate fact.(As some people keep repeating redundantly that info "98% of scientists can't be wrong!"(ie whidby)) That's not a logical argument.

That's what I mean when I say I'm just calling certain people's arguments out.

Others I've asked a pointed question with a point of getting a good answer. Either I lacked information, or wanted a point explained instead of someone simply insulting the one who asked and answering nothing, which is no way to win an argument or demonstrate the point, but all too common regardless.

In a sense, yeah, it's a talking point that's been debunked. But not here, or not in an adequate way. Like any other thread on fark, it's a re-hash of another, but there's always TONS of people who haven't read them all. Hell, this is only my second, maybe third GW thread, ever. Fark has a high turn-over that way, lots of new faces, and lots of cranky posters bored and tired of rational discussion, apparently.

Blindly insulting people who ask is only going to turn them against you(the collective "you"), even calling it "the old 'I was only asking' trick." Much of the time it IS that simple, people just want an answer or some simple and honest discussion, or ask a common question to see IF it can be answered, a crowd tester.

Honey draws more flies than vinegar. Sure, dog shiat draws flies too, but is intolerable to most people, we don't really need the vehement elitism that these people regurgitate out of habit. That goes beyond "a bit jaded" and straight into troll territory.

Now, just so you know, I had you on ignore, so I missed your posts until the one I quoted. I clicked show all posts, saw you were fairly reasonable, so decided to take you off that list for the time being. If after this post, you still feel the need to ask some of those questions in the way others have, insinuating all sorts of things, whatever. Hopefully you're more of a reasonable sort, if not, no big deal, I just click a button again.

I know I missed some other points, and regret having to type as much as I have. Sorry about the length, but you actually seemed reasonable so I figured I'd explain at length.
 
2012-12-14 01:04:14 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: Frederick: Those guesses illustrated in the graphs are absolutely debatable. And they are by definition guesses. The best you can say is "educated guesses". If you are unwilling to acknowledge that the science of determining AGW is based on guessing then you are the one who does not understand scientific method.

Time will tell how accurate the model is; not insistence.

Twenty years' worth of time has already shown that even the earlier models were quite accurate.


20 years huh? Neat. In another 100 you might have a basis. Keep at it.

BTW...dont try to make a claim that I am denying climate change. I've only said human influence on that change is debatable -which is still accurate.

Evolution; the best theory we have for the origin of species is itself evolving as more is learned over 100 years later. Dont act like AGW science is settled -that would be an immature position to take.
 
2012-12-14 01:06:24 AM

Baryogenesis: Frederick: Baryogenesis: Frederick: whidbey: Frederick: Do you have trouble with reading comprehension?

You do. You keep using words like "debatable." Did you have trouble reading TFA? Maybe you should eye the pie chart posted earlier. My favorite flavor. Cherry red.

I used "debatable" exactly one time. You ignored my question entirely. I dont think you even understand what I've written. Are you suggesting there is a pie chart with the level of influence humans have had on climate change? Because I find that doubtful.

Not a pie chart

Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate
From that link:

[chriscolose.files.wordpress.com image 490x391]


Here's another way to put it:
[cdn.greenoptions.com image 594x459] 

Here's another way to put it: "It is thus extremely likely (>95% probability) that the greenhouse gas induced warming since the mid-twentieth century was larger than the observed rise in global average temperatures, and extremely likely that anthropogenic forcings were by far the dominant cause of warming. The natural forcing contribution since 1950 is near zero."

And again for the visual learners (black line is the observed temperature):

[www.skepticalscience.com image 850x309]

Those guesses illustrated in the graphs are absolutely debatable. And they are by definition guesses. The best you can say is "educated guesses". If you are unwilling to acknowledge that the science of determining AGW is based on guessing then you are the one who does not understand scientific method.

Time will tell how accurate the model is; not insistence.

Yeah, ok dude. All those peer reviewed papers and the scientific method in general are just people guessing. That's how scientists developed computers too.


So, your comprehension lets you believe all those peer reviewed papers specifically address and support your individual claim about AGW? You dont for a second suppose the majority of those papers are in reference to climate change in general? How convenient for you.....
 
2012-12-14 01:08:58 AM

omeganuepsilon: Majority does not dictate fact.(As some people keep repeating redundantly that info "98% of scientists can't be wrong!"(ie whidby)) That's not a logical argument.


It's whidbey and this isn't about logic. This is about you refusing to take information to heart. I honestly don't know what acting like a Socratic Birther is going to accomplish here.

If you want something to debate, spur the thread on by suggesting what we should be doing to fight the effects of the pollution. Tell us whether or not you support wind or solar energy, or if you think that burning fossil fuel is sustainable or environmentally responsible.

Otherwise, please. Let this thread die.
 
2012-12-14 01:20:33 AM

Tatterdemalian: Whidbey's just a troll, he got his nose punched in a few threads ago when someone linked proof of his misogyny right after he insisted he had never made a misogynist remark, and now is trying to hide under the skirts of anyone that will tolerate him.


I knew the troll part. To be fair I make misogynist remarks all the time but it is as a going joke, now go make me a sammige.

Tatterdemalian: ///sort of like how so many liberals think they have the right to be racist and misogynist, because they pointed out other peoples' racism and/or misogyny first


I agree with the concept for some warmers(not necessarily climatologists, or exclusively them). Every sizable group has it's Believers, trolls and actual bigots, no matter how just the cause. I see some atheists use a genuinely logical argument in a religion thread, and it works. They then turn around in a separate thread with a different topic and use the same flawed tactic that they just busted.

Fark is full of those people, and those are the people I try to call out. I mean, really, when you call someone out for using a tactic that Bevets or Skinny Head normally use, that fails miserably, they may try to backpedal or straw man you to death, or whatever, but if you lay it out right you know they see it for what it was, a total sham. They tried to troll AND win, gambled it all and lost.

Those people I will then watch closely, even in religion threads, for them to slip up. Whether I agree with their argument or not, if it's not fit, I'll bust it.
/atheist
//no problem with religious people, but some of them, the one's that publish/push bad logic, analogies, willful ignorance, etc. That's what I have a problem with.
 
2012-12-14 01:28:42 AM

omeganuepsilon: //no problem with religious people, but some of them, the one's that publish/push bad logic, analogies, willful ignorance, etc. That's what I have a problem with.


But oddly, you don't have a problem when you are the one guilty of at least one major infraction on your list, "willful ignorance. "
 
2012-12-14 01:48:14 AM

whidbey: This is about you refusing to take information to heart.


This is a common disinformation tactic. They endlessly ask "reasonable" questions. They give the appearance of being very earnest and just seeking information but in reality they are being completely intellectually dishonest and have no interest in the truth.

The questions are carefully picked and worded to seem innocent but sew seeds of doubt in any 3rd parting reading. The answers provided are completely ignored because the goal is not to get answers. The goal is to muddy the waters to delay action.
 
2012-12-14 02:34:24 AM

whidbey: omeganuepsilon: //no problem with religious people, but some of them, the one's that publish/push bad logic, analogies, willful ignorance, etc. That's what I have a problem with.

But oddly, you don't have a problem when you are the one guilty of at least one major infraction on your list, "willful ignorance. "


Nope, my ignorance is purely circumstantial.

Willful ignorance:
Willful ignorance is the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one's inner model of reality. At heart, it is almost certainly driven by confirmation bias.

Possibly of further interest:
Confirmation bias is the tendency for people to only seek out information that conforms to their pre-existing view points, and subsequently ignore information that goes against them. It is a type of cognitive bias and a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study. Avoiding confirmation bias is an important part of rationalism and in science in general.

Being too lazy to google something and hoping that someone has on hand information is not "willful ignorance", but just plain old ignorance(lacking information). I'm more than open to new information, even embraced it from warmers within this thread.

Calling your argument of "majority consensus" a logical fallacy is not ignoring fact, just accurate description.

Appeal to Popularity (or) Ad Populum
See also:
Link

Farking Canuck: whidbey: This is about you refusing to take information to heart.

This is a common disinformation tactic. They endlessly ask "reasonable" questions. They give the appearance of being very earnest and just seeking information but in reality they are being completely intellectually dishonest and have no interest in the truth.

The questions are carefully picked and worded to seem innocent but sew seeds of doubt in any 3rd parting reading. The answers provided are completely ignored because the goal is not to get answers. The goal is to muddy the waters to delay action.


Ridicule
Spite

A few more bandied about:
Circumstantial Ad hominem
Poisoning the Well


Incase you people want to change it up some, there's more to pick from, you don't have to keep recycling like that.

Whole bunches of ways for yous guys to look like total butthooks.

Really guys, the only way to even look half intelligent is to talk about the points, or don't talk. All this accusation meant to sully my intent is rather transparent.
 
2012-12-14 02:37:17 AM

omeganuepsilon: Really guys, the only way to even look half intelligent is to talk about the points, or don't talk.


Yes, because continuing to side with the flat-earthers while continuing to dig oneself deeper when called out as an ignoramus continuing to spread disinformation constitutes looking "half intelligent."
 
2012-12-14 02:38:28 AM
lol "continuing"
 
2012-12-14 02:54:43 AM

whidbey: Yes, because continuing to side with the flat-earthers while continuing to dig oneself deeper when called out as an ignoramus continuing to spread disinformation constitutes looking "half intelligent."


You dont even know yet that you're not the "flat-earther". For how long did science teach that the sun revolved around the earth? Dont be so condescending with this initial data (meaning the last 20 years or so). It is appropriate to use words like "probably", "indicates" and "might mean".

Your stance is beginning to sound more like piety, than academics.
 
2012-12-14 02:57:10 AM

whidbey: Yes, because continuing to side with the flat-earthers


Now the trolling has come round full circle hasn't it. Didn't the majority once thing the earth was flat?

The answer is yes, and they were still wrong. Not saying they're wrong this time around, but the argument of majority is fallicious(howeverthehellyouwanttospellitiamabouttogotobed).
 
2012-12-14 02:58:24 AM

omeganuepsilon: think


FTFM

/night all
 
2012-12-14 03:04:50 AM

Frederick: Your stance is beginning to sound more like piety, than academics.


I wouldn't be the one making judgments about "stances."

The honorable thing to do would have been to admit your own ignorance and bow out of the discussion after clicking on a few of the links that were presented here. Your preferred way of dealing with it was to unfortunately dig yourself in deeper and project your failures onto others. Congratulations.
 
2012-12-14 03:11:29 AM

omeganuepsilon: Didn't the majority once thing the earth was flat?


Did who what now?

Not saying they're wrong this time around, but the argument of majority is fallicious

Again, you have this almost amusing habit of concerning yourself with other people's supposed failures in this discussion. when your own massive disconnect with the available science is frankly, hard to believe that anyone would be that stubborn about being wrong.

Here be dragons, indeed.
 
2012-12-14 03:26:08 AM

whidbey: Frederick: Your stance is beginning to sound more like piety, than academics.

I wouldn't be the one making judgments about "stances."

The honorable thing to do would have been to admit your own ignorance and bow out of the discussion after clicking on a few of the links that were presented here. Your preferred way of dealing with it was to unfortunately dig yourself in deeper and project your failures onto others. Congratulations.


I was trying to be civil with you even though you are obviously beneath me. Forget it. I have not even been arguing with you and I still find you intolerable. STFU.
 
2012-12-14 03:50:13 AM

Frederick: I still find you intolerable. STFU.


Because facepalming statements like

Most people agree that the climate changes. The influence of man on that change is still debatable

are extremely worthy of toleration.

LOL
 
2012-12-14 04:07:48 AM

omeganuepsilon: whidbey: Yes, because continuing to side with the flat-earthers

Now the trolling has come round full circle hasn't it. Didn't the majority once thing the earth was flat?

The answer is yes, and they were still wrong. Not saying they're wrong this time around, but the argument of majority is fallicious(howeverthehellyouwanttospellitiamabouttogotobed).


The idea that people thought the Earth was flat is a historical myth.

omeganuepsilon: Calling your argument of "majority consensus" a logical fallacy is not ignoring fact, just accurate description.

Appeal to Popularity (or) Ad Populum


Pointing out that 99.9% of peer reviewed articles support AGW is not an appeal to popularity. It's a summation of the scientific evidence supporting AGW as each paper is its own analysis of empirical data. No one is citing an opinion poll. We're citing the work and professional expertise of scientists in the field of climatology. We're talking about the scientific consensus, not a Gallup poll. It's easy way to point out to a lay person that there is almost no scientific debate on whether human activity is responsible for global warming.

A citation of those articles is a citation of evidence not of opinion. The evidence is stacked 99.9 to .1 in favor of AGW.

omeganuepsilon: I've taken a much different stance on GW than in past threads


Fair enough. What is that stance, exactly? At what point do you say, "hang on a minute"? Pick a spot: The Earth is warming, the Earth is warming and humans are the dominant forcing, the Earth is warming humans are the cause and the negatives of warming more than 2C outweigh the benefits.
 
2012-12-14 04:09:55 AM

whidbey: Frederick: I still find you intolerable. STFU.

Because facepalming statements like

Most people agree that the climate changes. The influence of man on that change is still debatable

are extremely worthy of toleration.

LOL


The funny thing is I posted a nice summation of man's contribution to observed warming a little ways up thread after Freddy scoffed that he didn't think such an analysis existed. His response? Those scientists are just guessing. I want some of what he's smoking. I also have him farkied as a truther for whatever that's worth.
 
2012-12-14 04:32:06 AM

Baryogenesis: whidbey: Frederick: I still find you intolerable. STFU.

Because facepalming statements like

Most people agree that the climate changes. The influence of man on that change is still debatable

are extremely worthy of toleration.

LOL

The funny thing is I posted a nice summation ^theory^ of man's contribution to observed warming a little ways up thread after Freddy scoffed that he didn't think such an analysis existed. His response? Those scientists are just guessing. I want some of what he's smoking. I also have him farkied as a truther for whatever that's worth.


^I made that more precise for you^

I see...so it's not enough to agree with climate change, for you, someone has to agree with every single aspect, blindly and with dick sucking devotion to a science that is at most 50 years old.

Why would you want to undertake such a fight? So much is yet to be learned; a reasonable parallel is the early days of astronomy. They made mistakes too.....being rigid and conformist is unreasonable.

\I could cut you some slack and sum you up as not understanding what "debatable" means.
 
2012-12-14 05:05:14 AM

Frederick: Baryogenesis: whidbey: Frederick: I still find you intolerable. STFU.

Because facepalming statements like

Most people agree that the climate changes. The influence of man on that change is still debatable

are extremely worthy of toleration.

LOL

The funny thing is I posted a nice summation ^theory^ of man's contribution to observed warming a little ways up thread after Freddy scoffed that he didn't think such an analysis existed. His response? Those scientists are just guessing. I want some of what he's smoking. I also have him farkied as a truther for whatever that's worth.

^I made that more precise for you^

I see...so it's not enough to agree with climate change, for you, someone has to agree with every single aspect, blindly and with dick sucking devotion to a science that is at most 50 years old.

Why would you want to undertake such a fight? So much is yet to be learned; a reasonable parallel is the early days of astronomy. They made mistakes too.....being rigid and conformist is unreasonable.

\I could cut you some slack and sum you up as not understanding what "debatable" means.


Riiiight. Just keep telling yourself that there's a debate about man's impact on the warming. And make sure to disregard anything and everything that conflicts with your gut or whatever it is you're basing your random musings on climate change upon. Your opinion is obviously just as good as the research I've linked.
 
2012-12-14 05:43:54 AM

Baryogenesis: Frederick: Baryogenesis: whidbey: Frederick: I still find you intolerable. STFU.

Because facepalming statements like

Most people agree that the climate changes. The influence of man on that change is still debatable

are extremely worthy of toleration.

LOL

The funny thing is I posted a nice summation ^theory^ of man's contribution to observed warming a little ways up thread after Freddy scoffed that he didn't think such an analysis existed. His response? Those scientists are just guessing. I want some of what he's smoking. I also have him farkied as a truther for whatever that's worth.

^I made that more precise for you^

I see...so it's not enough to agree with climate change, for you, someone has to agree with every single aspect, blindly and with dick sucking devotion to a science that is at most 50 years old.

Why would you want to undertake such a fight? So much is yet to be learned; a reasonable parallel is the early days of astronomy. They made mistakes too.....being rigid and conformist is unreasonable.

\I could cut you some slack and sum you up as not understanding what "debatable" means.

Riiiight. Just keep telling yourself that there's a debate about man's impact on the warming. And make sure to disregard anything and everything that conflicts with your gut or whatever it is you're basing your random musings on climate change upon. Your opinion is obviously just as good as the research I've linked.


Much of the research you've linked details climate change generally not AGW specifically -perhaps in your zeal to buttface argue you lose the difference between the two points .

How is it not debatable? What dont you understand? It's debatable whether man has any impact at all -which I believe humans do- the extent of that impact is a very legitimate debate. Those specifics are very tenuous -"guesses" you could call them. The data behind the science (of AGW) is so new that using definite terms in relating that data is irresponsible.

If you werent so asinine you'd realize arguing with me is splitting hairs.
 
2012-12-14 06:49:26 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: Tatterdemalian: As for AGW, I'll believe it when the climatologists stop acting like their own science is one big hustle that nobody is allowed to question, and treating skeptics like hecklers at a snake-oil salesman pitch.

How, exactly, are they doing so; and how is their attitude toward currently accepted theory any different from that of any other scientists regarding their fields of expertise?



It's turtles all the way down, and you're a hustler selling snake-oil if you try to tell us otherwise.

/doingitrite?
 
2012-12-14 09:33:34 AM

omeganuepsilon: Those people I will then watch closely, even in religion threads, for them to slip up. Whether I agree with their argument or not, if it's not fit, I'll bust it./atheist//no problem with religious people, but some of them, the one's that publish/push bad logic, analogies, willful ignorance, etc. That's what I have a problem with.


Good on you then. That's the sort of thing FARK needs a lot more of.

/I'm not perfect, and have used lots of bad arguments in the past
//but I don't *plonk* people for pointing them out, and in fact appreciate the legitimate corrections I get
///which makes me some kind of horrible monster, I guess
 
2012-12-14 09:54:09 AM

Tatterdemalian: Good on you then. That's the sort of thing FARK needs a lot more of.


We do not need a lot more people who deny mountains of evidence and the conclusions of 99.9% of per-reviewed, published scientific papers (only in one field of science mind you ... they raise no doubt in any fields where there actually is justification for debate). Their "doubts" are politically motivated bullshiat that have nothing to do with science or skepticism.
 
2012-12-14 11:16:38 AM

Farking Canuck: Their "doubts" are politically motivated bullshiat that have nothing to do with science or skepticism.


Yeah, but we're the paranoid ones.
 
2012-12-14 11:43:36 AM

Frederick: So much is yet to be learned;


Just stop it. Your ass was handed to you so incredibly thoroughly in this thread, I can see the print marks.
 
2012-12-14 12:27:02 PM
 
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