Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

37676 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2012 at 3:50 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



954 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-11 12:43:36 PM  
All that shows is scientist are worse than the average population when it comes to group-think.
 
2012-12-11 12:49:14 PM  
Oh good, I'm glad this was greened, even if it wasn't my headline.
 
2012-12-11 12:54:04 PM  
OK fine you win, climate change is real.

So lets all give more money to the government.
 
2012-12-11 12:54:58 PM  
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.
 
2012-12-11 12:55:06 PM  
I'll always have, in the back of my mind, the fact that some scientists faked their data a couple years ago.

I'm not an idiot, it just made me skeptical.
 
2012-12-11 12:59:48 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.

Dont get me wrong, I think we as humans have changed the climate, but.. we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

//dont worry, I think we need to get off fosell fuels, and have clean air too
/// am a hippy (not really a dirty one though)
 
2012-12-11 12:59:48 PM  
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!
 
2012-12-11 01:00:00 PM  
Well I'm convinced.
 
2012-12-11 01:02:10 PM  

tobcc: Dont get me wrong, I think we as humans have changed the climate, but.. we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.


Which is why I said versus the 20th century average.
 
2012-12-11 01:02:47 PM  
www.desmogblog.com


/hot like, well, you know
 
2012-12-11 01:02:51 PM  
Hurricane Sandy, a category 1 hurricane, managed to top FEMAs 1983 projected 500-year flooding mark, which was rather sobering.
 
Whether it's the magic hippo or everyone peeing while swimming, sea level is much much higher than it was 100 or even 20 years ago.
 
2012-12-11 01:06:06 PM  

tobcc: Dont get me wrong, I think we as humans have changed the climate, but.. we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.


I have a clock that is 80 years old, but I don't need to observe it for a decade to determine its periodicity and any variations thereof.
 
2012-12-11 01:06:22 PM  
Consensus =/= science. Still.
 
2012-12-11 01:08:14 PM  
whyfiles.org
 
2012-12-11 01:08:21 PM  

BravadoGT: Consensus =/= science. Still.


Uh. What about the scientific method and rigor is so f*cking hard to understand?
 
2012-12-11 01:08:49 PM  
Almost all of the pie is gone!
 
2012-12-11 01:09:32 PM  

BravadoGT: Consensus =/= science. Still.


Reviewing a peer's work and challenging it and failing to reverse the finding is.
 
2012-12-11 01:10:30 PM  

tobcc: Dont get me wrong, I think we as humans have changed the climate, but.. we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.


This is wrong. We have data going back much, much, much further:

Link

Scroll down to temperature and CO2 graph.

Of course understanding how we can reconstruct temperature data requires understanding a bit more science, therefore many will dismiss it. It is interesting that they can reconstruct CO2 levels, and dust levels as well.
 
2012-12-11 01:13:36 PM  
Science thrives on dissenting ideas, it grows and learns from them.

While that may be true of science, it is not always true of scientists.
 
2012-12-11 01:15:41 PM  

tobcc: we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.


WRONG!! Ice core samples, we have data going back 800,000 years
 
2012-12-11 01:16:06 PM  

Lucky LaRue: All that shows is scientist are worse than the average population when it comes to group-think.



Sure, Jim Inhofe.
 
2012-12-11 01:16:16 PM  

BigBurrito: tobcc: Dont get me wrong, I think we as humans have changed the climate, but.. we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

This is wrong. We have data going back much, much, much further:

Link

Scroll down to temperature and CO2 graph.

Of course understanding how we can reconstruct temperature data requires understanding a bit more science, therefore many will dismiss it. It is interesting that they can reconstruct CO2 levels, and dust levels as well.


//shakes fist and leaves
 
2012-12-11 01:18:38 PM  

Mangoose: While that may be true of science, it is not always true of scientists.


The Scientist is not so important to Science. Science moves forward. Sometimes a Scientist can move Science forward faster (Newton, Einstein, many others) but it moves regardless of the Scientist. It builds slowly, sometimes, rarely, very quickly.

Perhaps that is too conceptual.
 
2012-12-11 01:20:31 PM  

zedster: tobcc: we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

WRONG!! Ice core samples, we have data going back 800,000 years


and the the formation of rocks helps us know about carbon and temperature levels as well. we get back much further than 800k with that.
 
2012-12-11 01:21:45 PM  
Book of Genesis:

9:11 I will establish my covenant with you; neither will all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the flood; neither will there any more be a flood to destroy the earth."

9:12 God said, "This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

9:13 I set my rainbow in the cloud, and it will be for a sign of a covenant between me and the earth.

9:14 It will happen, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow will be seen in the cloud,

9:15 and I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh, and the waters will no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

9:16 The rainbow will be in the cloud. I will look at it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth."

9:17 God said to Noah, "This is the token of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth."


I'll take God's solemn word over any egghead's any day.
 
2012-12-11 01:22:27 PM  
Interesting how the vast majority of people that reject the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change are willing to believe claims made in texts that are mellinia old without any skepticism....
 
2012-12-11 01:22:57 PM  

rotsky: I'm not an idiot, it just made me skeptical.


Are you skeptical about whether vaccines really don't cause autism too? I mean, autism rates have gone up, and vaccination rates have gone up. There are some scientists who think that vaccines cause autism. I'm just asking questions.
 
2012-12-11 01:23:31 PM  

doyner: Interesting how the vast majority of people that reject the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change are willing to believe claims made in texts that are mellinia old without any skepticism....


Faith in God has sustained us much longer than science has.
 
2012-12-11 01:23:59 PM  
Allow me to retort:

Al Gore. LOL it's snowing! Carbon credits scam. Leaked emails. Solyndra. Libtards.
 
2012-12-11 01:24:25 PM  

Diogenes: doyner: Interesting how the vast majority of people that reject the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change are willing to believe claims made in texts that are mellinia old without any skepticism....

Faith in God has sustained us much longer than science has.


You're not very good at this trolling thing.
 
2012-12-11 01:25:08 PM  

Kazan: and the the formation of rocks helps us know about carbon and temperature levels as well. we get back much further than 800k with that.


Just for my own curiosity,I suspect that depends on the type of rock, no?

Any links? Why yes, I am too lazy to google it.
 
2012-12-11 01:27:31 PM  
I don't know how much humans are responsible for climate change, and I don't know if that really even matters anyway. The fact is, the climate is changing, and I suppose we can sit around and bicker about it, or, more productively, we can maybe try to prepare ourselves for it.
 
2012-12-11 01:29:14 PM  
Get with the times, people!

The new line of derpitude is that global warming exists, but we can't definitively prove that all of it is man-made so we shouldn't do anything about it.
 
2012-12-11 01:31:11 PM  

Diogenes: Faith in God has sustained us much longer than science has.


Adaptability of our species has maintained us much, much longer still. God is a newcomer, a powerful concept, but very new and occupying only the briefest moment in time. God does not exist without common language. Common language is still fairly new within our species.
 
2012-12-11 01:36:08 PM  
Journey with me, subby, back to the early 1600s. You remember studying the 1600s, right? It was a great time of science and learning, but it it was also a great time of scientific misunderstanding. The best of times and the worst of times, if you want to cite a book that's about to be a very, very big Christmas movie. If you're into that sort of gay musical thing, I mean. I'm certainly not, but whatever floats your boat.

But anyway, I distract myself. My point is that, back in the 1600s, everybody -- and I do mean everybody, every peasant and every scientist and every priest, every-freakin'-body--believed in something called Heliocentrism. Which basically was the belief that everything rotated around the sun. No, wait, that's the way it really is. It's the belief that everything rotates around the earth.

No, wait, I was right the first time. Heliocentrism is the belief that everything rotates around the sun, but it's not what everybody believed. Everybody believed that second thing I wrote, about stuff orbiting earth. I don't know what they called it. Earth-centrism maybe. Or Terra-centrism, scientists like using the word "Terra" instead of "Earth" because it's Latin and sounds fancier. But, so, everybody believed in Terra-centrism, and then along comes this guy named Galileo, had the gumption, the guts, the stones to stand up to the world and say NO. The universe is HELIOCENTRIC. Everything orbits the SUN, not the other way around!

Well, as you might imagine, people were pissed off. Nobody likes their entire universe being questioned. Galileo (his friends called him Leo) was imprisoned in his own house, which doesn't sound to bad until you realize they didn't have electricity back then. No TV, no radio, no internet. Imagine that. He was imprisoned for years. But he stuck to his guns. And, eventually, everybody realized that he was right, after all. The sun IS at the center of the universe.

So think about it. If you were to take your fancy little pie chart and publish it back in the 1600s, what would it look like? The red sliver, which represents plucky ol' Leo, would barely be there at all. And the massive black chunk would represent everybody else who thought he was wrong. AND HE WASN'T WRONG. So what's that tell?

Remember -- being correct means having the courage to stand up to the world when you know you're in the right. It means being the lone voice in a tempest, the single drop in an ocean. Learn from Leo, who was immortalized centuries later in Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, which tells the story of his struggle to shine truth into the world. I find him absolutely inspiring.
 
2012-12-11 01:36:08 PM  

Snarfangel: Almost all of the pie is gone!


Or, someone ate one really, really thin slice of it.
 
2012-12-11 01:36:51 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Diogenes: doyner: Interesting how the vast majority of people that reject the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change are willing to believe claims made in texts that are mellinia old without any skepticism....

Faith in God has sustained us much longer than science has.

You're not very good at this trolling thing.


My heart's just not in it.
 
2012-12-11 01:37:45 PM  

BigBurrito: Kazan: and the the formation of rocks helps us know about carbon and temperature levels as well. we get back much further than 800k with that.

Just for my own curiosity,I suspect that depends on the type of rock, no?

Any links? Why yes, I am too lazy to google it.


yes .. limestone deposition, etc. i don't think i can find a short handy article to explain it.
 
2012-12-11 01:39:52 PM  

Pocket Ninja: The best of times and the worst of times, if you want to cite a book that's about to be a very, very big Christmas movie


Spectacular.
 
2012-12-11 01:41:23 PM  

Vodka Zombie: I don't know how much humans are responsible for climate change, and I don't know if that really even matters anyway.


It does matter. If you don't think that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere causes the earth to get warmer, you won't think there's any reason to stop emitting them.
 
2012-12-11 01:42:48 PM  

Diogenes: cameroncrazy1984: Diogenes: doyner: Interesting how the vast majority of people that reject the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change are willing to believe claims made in texts that are mellinia old without any skepticism....

Faith in God has sustained us much longer than science has.

You're not very good at this trolling thing.

My heart's just not in it.


Buck up, little camper. You can do it!
 
2012-12-11 01:43:20 PM  

Diogenes: doyner: Interesting how the vast majority of people that reject the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change are willing to believe claims made in texts that are mellinia old without any skepticism....

Faith in God has sustained us much longer than science has.


You're right. Science advances rather than sustains ;)
 
2012-12-11 01:43:56 PM  

Relatively Obscure: Diogenes: doyner: Interesting how the vast majority of people that reject the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change are willing to believe claims made in texts that are mellinia old without any skepticism....

Faith in God has sustained us much longer than science has.

You're right. Science advances rather than sustains ;)


Oh, Snap!
 
2012-12-11 01:48:12 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Journey with me, subby, back to the early 1600s...



imageshack.us

Some things just get better with age...
 
2012-12-11 01:48:37 PM  
Has anyone ever said the planet wasn't changing?! Any dumb enough to think that the planet was always this way and will always be this way?!

If there is throw them down a canyon and while they fall to their death yell "there use to be ice here!".
 
2012-12-11 01:50:08 PM  

brap: Hurricane Sandy, a category 1 hurricane, managed to top FEMAs 1983 projected 500-year flooding mark, which was rather sobering.

Whether it's the magic hippo or everyone peeing while swimming, sea level is much much higher than it was 100 or even 20 years ago.



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.
 
2012-12-11 01:50:45 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Has anyone ever said the planet wasn't changing?! Any dumb enough to think that the planet was always this way and will always be this way?!

If there is throw them down a canyon and while they fall to their death yell "there use to be ice here!".


Now this is some quality trolling!

Even included some spelling and grammatical errors to make it realistic.
 
2012-12-11 01:59:28 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Now this is some quality trolling!


I don't troll. I believe what I say and say what I believe. Now and then I put it in a way that makes me laugh.

cameroncrazy1984: Even included some spelling and grammatical errors to make it realistic.

 

I really wish I could say that I do those on purpose......

Correcting my spelling and grammar would be a full time job for anyone. At the best of times it sucks and at the worst of time (farking) it's just horrible.

Hey, no one is perfect
 
2012-12-11 02:01:48 PM  
Over 99% of scientists agree that putting a plastic bag over your head and tying it shut with a rubber band is unhealthy. I recommend to climate-change deniers a dose of skepticism there, too.
 
2012-12-11 02:05:24 PM  
You won't get funding from the USA to write papers arguing against global warming, no matter how sound your science is. And if you need funding ...
 
2012-12-11 02:11:43 PM  
thefrugalwinesnob.com
 
2012-12-11 02:11:59 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: Allow me to retort:

Al Gore. LOL it's snowing! Carbon credits scam. Leaked emails. Solyndra. Libtards.


You've given me much to ponder.

/lol
 
2012-12-11 02:12:44 PM  

SlothB77: [thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]


When did Time become a peer reviewed scientific journal?
 
2012-12-11 02:12:59 PM  

SlothB77: [thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]


Time magazine is now the authority on global climate?
 
2012-12-11 02:13:05 PM  

SlothB77: You won't get funding from the USA to write papers arguing against global warming, no matter how sound your science is. And if you need funding ...


Do you do realize that you won't get funding for any "science" if you have pre-decided conclusions.
 
2012-12-11 02:14:07 PM  

SlothB77: [thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]


I guess we made too much of a difference from 1977 to 2006. Oops.
 
2012-12-11 02:17:06 PM  

SlothB77: You won't get funding from the USA to write papers arguing against global warming, no matter how sound your science is. And if you need funding ...


You mean like this study paid for by the Koch brothers that proved that climate change is real?
 
2012-12-11 02:17:38 PM  

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?



 
 
2012-12-11 02:18:16 PM  
Once again, I paraphrase from the documentary 'The Corporation'

"In the last 75 years, mankind has consumed and burned more resources than in the entire history of the Earth combined".

The Earth has been around for approximately 4.5 billion years. A lot has happened in that time, certainly. But consider that in a time span of only 75 years, a blink of an eye in comparison with the age of the planet, we have burned more gas, more diesel, clear-cut more forests and polluted more air to travel trillions of miles in planes, cars, trains and buses. And in that same span we have industrialized vast swaths of the planet for the sole purpose of producing stuff.

And there are those that would have us believe that this utterly unprecedented impact to the environment has had no consequence whatsoever.

Really.
 
2012-12-11 02:19:15 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?


It hit at a high tide, and as noted, the storm was huge. Worst of both worlds.
 
2012-12-11 02:20:58 PM  

SlothB77: You won't get funding from the USA to write papers arguing against global warming, no matter how sound your science is. And if you need funding ...


Actually, if your science is sound and you have a pertinent test, you would most likely receive funding.

Most basic science research is funded by the NSF. The NSF uses peer reviews to determine allocation of funding. You send a grant request in, then that request is submitted with other grant requests to anonymous scientists in your discipline. Those anonymous scientists determine which grants are more deserving of the money. Recommendations are made and eventually the funds are rewarded. Usually to the most deserving project.

More research to prove that global warming exists is a rather low priority for funding. The consensus already exists that it does. A research area that might question that result is much more compelling to a reviewer than one that reinforces the current understanding.

The question becomes, what area of science has the best potential to disprove global warming.
 
2012-12-11 02:21:20 PM  

Rev.K: Once again, I paraphrase from the documentary 'The Corporation'

"In the last 75 years, mankind has consumed and burned more resources than in the entire history of the Earth combined".

The Earth has been around for approximately 4.5 billion years. A lot has happened in that time, certainly. But consider that in a time span of only 75 years, a blink of an eye in comparison with the age of the planet, we have burned more gas, more diesel, clear-cut more forests and polluted more air to travel trillions of miles in planes, cars, trains and buses. And in that same span we have industrialized vast swaths of the planet for the sole purpose of producing stuff.

And there are those that would have us believe that this utterly unprecedented impact to the environment has had no consequence whatsoever.

Really.


The Earth is 6000 years old so your argument is invalid.
 
2012-12-11 02:23:26 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Vodka Zombie: I don't know how much humans are responsible for climate change, and I don't know if that really even matters anyway.

It does matter. If you don't think that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere causes the earth to get warmer, you won't think there's any reason to stop emitting them.


True. It's really both. I mean, yes, we should stop with the damaging emissions. But, I think the more pressing concern is trying to find a way of adapting to the change. For example, it'd be nice to see some storm barriers in NY and New Orleans and other vulnerable, ocean-side places.
 
2012-12-11 02:23:39 PM  

BigBurrito:
The question becomes, what area of science has the best potential to disprove global warming.


Mixology, duh!

Look at all that ice!

tlbadventures.com
 
2012-12-11 02:26:23 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-11 02:27:13 PM  

BigBurrito: SlothB77: You won't get funding from the USA to write papers arguing against global warming, no matter how sound your science is. And if you need funding ...

Actually, if your science is sound and you have a pertinent test, you would most likely receive funding.

Most basic science research is funded by the NSF. The NSF uses peer reviews to determine allocation of funding. You send a grant request in, then that request is submitted with other grant requests to anonymous scientists in your discipline. Those anonymous scientists determine which grants are more deserving of the money. Recommendations are made and eventually the funds are rewarded. Usually to the most deserving project.

More research to prove that global warming exists is a rather low priority for funding. The consensus already exists that it does. A research area that might question that result is much more compelling to a reviewer than one that reinforces the current understanding.

The question becomes, what area of science has the best potential to disprove global warming.


See the story I linked above. The Koch Brothers paid for a study to prove that global warming wasn't real. They found that the evidence did in fact show the planet was warming beyond statistical doubt.
 
2012-12-11 02:27:59 PM  

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

Time magazine is now the authority on global climate?



I suspect he fails to realize that this image disproves his assertions that Science ignores an opposing opinion.
 
2012-12-11 02:30:12 PM  

fiver5: OK fine you win, climate change is real.

So lets all give more money to the government.


i44.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-11 02:35:13 PM  

GAT_00: See the story I linked above. The Koch Brothers paid for a study to prove that global warming wasn't real. They found that the evidence did in fact show the planet was warming beyond statistical doubt.


Yep, I had a good chuckle when that news broke.


This is very much why there is an overwhelming consensus that global warming is happening. Every metric, we currently have, supports that conclusion. If a new and valid metric could be found, it will receive funding, whether from the NSF or some other private entity.
 
2012-12-11 02:37:11 PM  
All I am going to add to this is that my understanding about those who question global warming is this (and let's be honest, it is a major sticking point): What is its cause and what, if anything can we do about it?

IIRC the human contribution to total yearly CO2 output is something on the order of less than one half of one percent (0.05%). Volcanoes, oceanic outgassings, cow farts/non human animal farts and rotting plant matter are the major contributors to the Earth's CO2 .

/I have not done any research on the matter and may be totally wrong about my second paragraph...I cannot remember where I heard this stuff from...CNN, Fox....???
 
2012-12-11 02:39:04 PM  

Endive Wombat: All I am going to add to this is that my understanding about those who question global warming is this (and let's be honest, it is a major sticking point): What is its cause and what, if anything can we do about it?

IIRC the human contribution to total yearly CO2 output is something on the order of less than one half of one percent (0.05%). Volcanoes, oceanic outgassings, cow farts/non human animal farts and rotting plant matter are the major contributors to the Earth's CO2 .

/I have not done any research on the matter and may be totally wrong about my second paragraph...I cannot remember where I heard this stuff from...CNN, Fox....???


I'm guessing Fox.
 
2012-12-11 02:40:18 PM  

Endive Wombat: cow farts/non human animal farts and rotting plant matter are the major contributors to the Earth's CO2


You can't separate that from "human contribution," though. Most of that is from our agriculture.
 
2012-12-11 02:40:32 PM  

SlothB77: You won't get funding from the USA to write papers arguing against global warming, no matter how sound your science is. And if you need funding ...


There are 535 members of congress and the senate. All of them are facing elections at some point. 50 governors. And a president. The nations of Europe add a few thousand more elected representatives.

Every single one of those people wants to get elected.

A lot of them (like, pretty much all of the southern US, and most of the midwest) would experience an enormous economic benefit, sharply increased tax revenue, huge job growth, and large increases in property values, for producing actual scientific research which could even bring up marginally reasonable doubts about our current knowledge of climate change.

That's hundreds of billions of dollars these otherwise cut-throat, ruthless, incredibly competitive politicians are all systematically ignoring, in deference to a handful of physics wonks at NOAA and NASA. (neither of which, btw, pays nearly as well as the energy business.)

I'm just trying to wrap my head around exactly what motivates this enormous conspiracy. I hate my senators, truly I do - but I know they're actually smart, motivated, agressive people, not some stooges in a Bond film.
 
2012-12-11 02:40:45 PM  
So we're all gonna die? I kinda know that already. Party on bro.
 
2012-12-11 02:44:13 PM  

Endive Wombat: All I am going to add to this is that my understanding about those who question global warming is this (and let's be honest, it is a major sticking point): What is its cause and what, if anything can we do about it?

IIRC the human contribution to total yearly CO2 output is something on the order of less than one half of one percent (0.05%). Volcanoes, oceanic outgassings, cow farts/non human animal farts and rotting plant matter are the major contributors to the Earth's CO2 .

/I have not done any research on the matter and may be totally wrong about my second paragraph...I cannot remember where I heard this stuff from...CNN, Fox....???


Here, read this. Seems to be a good easy to read breakdown.
 
2012-12-11 02:46:07 PM  
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.
 
2012-12-11 02:57:08 PM  

Endive Wombat: All I am going to add to this is that my understanding about those who question global warming is this (and let's be honest, it is a major sticking point): What is its cause and what, if anything can we do about it?


I believe many people have stopped worrying about the cause, and very, very few holdouts cling to denying its existence.

The consequences of global warming are still very much up for debate, even within the sciences. What happens, when does it happen, and what may change the outcome? Hell, if we have a very large Volcanic eruption the ash will cool the atmosphere. T

I think that is where the former deniers are moving to. Better to debate future consequences, that can be neither proved or disproved. Kind of like conspiracy theories, it has the ability to grab peoples imaginations. That is a good and fun thing and has the benefit of enabling research to proceed without as much political interference.
 
2012-12-11 03:03:39 PM  

sweetmelissa31: rotsky: I'm not an idiot, it just made me skeptical.

Are you skeptical about whether vaccines really don't cause autism too? I mean, autism rates have gone up, and vaccination rates have gone up. There are some scientists who think that vaccines cause autism. I'm just asking questions.


IMHO it's potty training that causes autism, not vaccines.
 
2012-12-11 03:07:50 PM  

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.


Sure, lightning can cause forest fires too, but that's no excuse for lighting one yourself.

Just because there's been naturally occuring warmer periods in the past, is not an excuse to CAUSE one now.
 
2012-12-11 03:15:08 PM  

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.


That seems very defeatist. Why cant humans cause global warming? What makes us incapable of causing impacts on a large scale?
 
2012-12-11 03:27:03 PM  

BigBurrito: Endive Wombat: All I am going to add to this is that my understanding about those who question global warming is this (and let's be honest, it is a major sticking point): What is its cause and what, if anything can we do about it?

I believe many people have stopped worrying about the cause, and very, very few holdouts cling to denying its existence.

The consequences of global warming are still very much up for debate, even within the sciences. What happens, when does it happen, and what may change the outcome? Hell, if we have a very large Volcanic eruption the ash will cool the atmosphere. T

I think that is where the former deniers are moving to. Better to debate future consequences, that can be neither proved or disproved. Kind of like conspiracy theories, it has the ability to grab peoples imaginations. That is a good and fun thing and has the benefit of enabling research to proceed without as much political interference.



Well, several hundred years ago, the Earth was warmed (Medieval Warm Period) and cooled (Little Ice Age) with what I think most people will agree as zero influence by humans as we were not contributing much to the total Earth's CO2 output at that point in time. 

Again, with what little I have studied, I am more apt to believe that sun spots and other Earthly/Nature based factors contribute 98% of global warming. While I am not denying the fact that we more than likely contribute somewhat to Global Warming...I just suspect that there are other, much larger factors at play that try as we may, we will never be able to overcome and will have almost zero ability to do anything about it.
 
2012-12-11 03:32:00 PM  

BigBurrito: Why cant humans cause global warming? What makes us incapable of causing impacts on a large scale?


At what point did you realize you are impotent?
 
2012-12-11 03:36:55 PM  

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.


The only thing that I have read on this that makes the most sense to even the hardest skeptic is that the Earth can handle only so much CO2 before shiat starts to change, and that humans, while only contributing a tiny, tiny amount may be the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back"
 
2012-12-11 03:40:43 PM  

Endive Wombat: BigBurrito: Endive Wombat: All I am going to add to this is that my understanding about those who question global warming is this (and let's be honest, it is a major sticking point): What is its cause and what, if anything can we do about it?

I believe many people have stopped worrying about the cause, and very, very few holdouts cling to denying its existence.

The consequences of global warming are still very much up for debate, even within the sciences. What happens, when does it happen, and what may change the outcome? Hell, if we have a very large Volcanic eruption the ash will cool the atmosphere. T

I think that is where the former deniers are moving to. Better to debate future consequences, that can be neither proved or disproved. Kind of like conspiracy theories, it has the ability to grab peoples imaginations. That is a good and fun thing and has the benefit of enabling research to proceed without as much political interference.


Well, several hundred years ago, the Earth was warmed (Medieval Warm Period) and cooled (Little Ice Age) with what I think most people will agree as zero influence by humans as we were not contributing much to the total Earth's CO2 output at that point in time. 

Again, with what little I have studied, I am more apt to believe that sun spots and other Earthly/Nature based factors contribute 98% of global warming. While I am not denying the fact that we more than likely contribute somewhat to Global Warming...I just suspect that there are other, much larger factors at play that try as we may, we will never be able to overcome and will have almost zero ability to do anything about it.


You are talking about a smaller change in temperatures over a much longer period of time.

whyfiles.org

That is a brilliant chart, as it shows not only the current trends, which tie quite nicely to the industrial revolution, but also the medieval warming periods you are so eager to hang your hat on.

No doubt you can see the difference in magnitude.
 
2012-12-11 03:40:58 PM  
torontoist.com
 
2012-12-11 03:45:26 PM  

SlothB77: You won't get funding from the USA to write papers arguing against global warming, no matter how sound your science is. And if you need funding ...


Except for that study that was funded by the Koch brothers to try to disprove global warming that ended up doing the exact opposite.

Remember that? That was funny.
 
2012-12-11 03:46:54 PM  

GAT_00: SlothB77: You won't get funding from the USA to write papers arguing against global warming, no matter how sound your science is. And if you need funding ...

You mean like this study paid for by the Koch brothers that proved that climate change is real?


Dammit man, beat me to it.
 
2012-12-11 03:47:02 PM  
And why do people think the earth is round? It looks flat from my point of view.

The fact is that when you claim that humans can't have enough impact to cause climate change, you're ignoring evidence that has already been presented by scientists. You are asking simplistic questions that scientists have already answered.
 
2012-12-11 03:51:57 PM  

Endive Wombat: Well, several hundred years ago, the Earth was warmed (Medieval Warm Period) and cooled (Little Ice Age) with what I think most people will agree as zero influence by humans as we were not contributing much to the total Earth's CO2 output at that point in time. 

Again, with what little I have studied, I am more apt to believe that sun spots and other Earthly/Nature based factors contribute 98% of global warming. While I am not denying the fact that we more than likely contribute somewhat to Global Warming...I just suspect that there are other, much larger factors at play that try as we may, we will never be able to overcome and will have almost zero ability to do anything about it.



Bolded words are problematic in science.

You only raised one question that can be tested, Solar Activity.

Solar activity has been less than average over the past decade. Yet we are still warming. What conclusion can we draw? 

Your right that there is cycle to warming and cooling of the earth. Your most likely correct that it probably does not matter if it is human caused or not. In the end market forces will determine what happens and how.
 
2012-12-11 03:51:59 PM  
 
2012-12-11 03:53:02 PM  
And yet that will mean nothing to some people.
 
2012-12-11 03:54:00 PM  
Meh, doesn't matter to me what happens in 50+ years. I'll be long gone by then.

/amirite?
 
2012-12-11 03:54:30 PM  
redgreenandblue.org
 
2012-12-11 03:55:10 PM  

Lucky LaRue: All that shows is scientist are worse than the average population when it comes to group-think.


Yeah. It's even worse among professional geographers. 100% of them think the Earth is round. Sheep.

... and in summary: If scientists don't agree on global warming, then global warming is wrong. If scientists do agree on global warming, they're delusional group-thinkers, then global warming is wrong. Either way, global warming is wrong, so it hardly matters what scientists think. Right?
 
2012-12-11 03:55:23 PM  

Endive Wombat: 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.

The only thing that I have read on this that makes the most sense to even the hardest skeptic is that the Earth can handle only so much CO2 before shiat starts to change, and that humans, while only contributing a tiny, tiny amount may be the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back"


It has happened in the past, will again. The Earth is perfectly capable of responding to CO2. We have had mega greenhouse periods in the past you know, we did not just turn in to Venus.
 
2012-12-11 03:55:58 PM  
Not that I think man-made climate change is a lie, I do think we are screwing up the climate, but...science has agreed overwhelmingly on topics and theories in the past, only to be proven wrong later.

everyone agreeing doesn't equal being right.

/again, I am not a denier.
 
2012-12-11 03:56:26 PM  
Slides and sources from Climate Change is Simple. Link
 
2012-12-11 03:57:20 PM  

hutchkc: And yet that will mean nothing to some people.


Well, of course. Teach the controversy, after all.

It's the same kind of controversy that you get from a guy on a street corner ranting about how the pumpkins are coming, oh God, the pumpkins are coming, but controversy.
 
2012-12-11 03:57:38 PM  
So, bomb all industry and return to the caves?
 
2012-12-11 03:58:01 PM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: Not that I think man-made climate change is a lie, I do think we are screwing up the climate, but...science has agreed overwhelmingly on topics and theories in the past, only to be proven wrong later.

everyone agreeing doesn't equal being right.

/again, I am not a denier.


What sort of examples of the scientific consensus being wrong did you have in mind?
 
2012-12-11 03:58:01 PM  
I don't like to hear bad news or to feel guilty about things so this is totally bogus.
 
2012-12-11 03:58:34 PM  
All that shows is science is dead. We've threw out questioning our conclusions and taken the money. 
Used to be a seventh grader could tell you the steps of the scientific method... doubt they even teach it now.
 
2012-12-11 03:58:39 PM  
Hair pie?

t1.gstatic.com

/oh, sank you
 
2012-12-11 03:59:11 PM  

kombat_unit: So, bomb all industry and return to the caves?


or, find cleaner ways to do business.

But that might cut into profits a little so forget it, lets bomb all industry and return to caves.
 
2012-12-11 03:59:52 PM  

BigBurrito: Diogenes: Faith in God has sustained us much longer than science has.

Adaptability of our species has maintained us much, much longer still. God is a newcomer, a powerful concept, but very new and occupying only the briefest moment in time. God does not exist without common language. Common language is still fairly new within our species.


SO MANY assumptions.
 
2012-12-11 04:00:20 PM  
I don't really doubt climate change so much. I've seen a huge change in my own climate over the past 20 years. I'm just not ready to buy into the notion that the phenomenon is completely man-made.

Climate change has been happening since the dawn of the time. Certainly we can't blame it all on the burning of fossil fuels...

Unless you consider dino-fart methane a type of fossil fuel. Maybe that's what caused their extinction...but I digress...
 
2012-12-11 04:00:29 PM  
somethingshiny.com

Rent Party: BigBurrito:
The question becomes, what area of science has the best potential to disprove global warming.

Mixology, duh!

Look at all that ice!

[tlbadventures.com image 266x400]


WHAT IS THAT??? I WANT ONE!!!!!!
 
2012-12-11 04:00:45 PM  
Pocket Ninja: /snip

Another gem...
 
2012-12-11 04:01:22 PM  

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? ;-)
 
2012-12-11 04:01:47 PM  
The only definitive thing that can be said about the climate is that it will change.

Whether the current cycle of change is caused by humans, or sunspots, or goats, is pretty much irrelevant.

The idea that modifying our actions will allow us to act as some sort of global thermostat is ludicrous.

The earth has been hotter, and the earth has been colder. It will be hotter again, and colder again.

Instead of arguing about the effects that these changes will have - some inevitable, some possibly not inevitable - I think we as a species are far better off trying to figure out how to live in a changing world. Unfortunately this means undoing things already done, like unchecked population growth, fossil fuel dependence, building cities below sea level.

While it's possible that the earth is warming as a direct result of man, there's no proof that the miles will come off just by putting the car on blocks in reverse. We had better figure out how to live with climate change rather than try to control climate change.
 
2012-12-11 04:01:53 PM  
socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-11 04:02:35 PM  
Nice pie chart.

It could easily be renamed for many other concepts that are unpopular with the central banking system...

like enforcing immigration laws, ending the wars,
 
2012-12-11 04:02:42 PM  

Snarfangel: Almost all of the pie is gone!


In terms of an actual pie, that sliver is less than the part of the pie that gets squished straight down if you use the spatula to cut the pie. Once. You're not actually removing any pie from the plate; you've just made the first cut.
 
2012-12-11 04:02:53 PM  

SlothB77: [thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]


thefrugalwinesnob.com

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.
 
2012-12-11 04:03:48 PM  

Lucky LaRue: All that shows is scientist are worse than the average population when it comes to group-think.


People want to be popular... WITH the crowd, not against it. It's that way in school and it's that way in real life. These so-called scientists are no different. The earth has been experiencing hot and cold cycles since the beginning of time. Scientists cut down trees today and can see that for themselves, and they can see that MAN had nothing to do with it. Move along, nothing to see here.
 
2012-12-11 04:03:52 PM  
Oh,... its just a consensus graph, i thought it might have actual facts and science attached.
 
2012-12-11 04:03:56 PM  
Here's another topic about which there is no scientific controversy but plenty of self-declared pro-science thinkers deny the science to further their own personal agenda:

In the long-term, diet and exercise alone will not bring about significant, sustained weight loss in the majority of people. You can easily find tons of qualified, long-term, peer-review studies confirming this. You can not find any qualified, long-term peer-reviewed study showing it to be false. Yet lots of people run around spouting off the idea that you can lose lots of weight and keep it off in the long term through diet and exercise as though that is fact.

Oh, and in case you're wondering: Here's the science

Here's the short of it:

In conclusion, this meta-analysis of 29 reports of long-term weight-loss maintenance indicated that weight-loss maintenance 4 or 5 y after a structured weight-loss program averages 3.0 kg or 23% of initial weight loss, representing a sustained reduction in body weight of 3.2%. Individuals who participated in a VLED program or lost ≥20 kg had a weight-loss maintenance at 4 or 5 y of 7 kg or 29% of initial weight loss, representing a sustained reduction in body weight of 6.6%. Although success in weight-loss maintenance has improved over the past decade, much more research is required to enable most individuals to sustain the lifestyle changes in physical activity and food choices necessary for successful weight maintenance.
 
2012-12-11 04:03:56 PM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: Not that I think man-made climate change is a lie, I do think we are screwing up the climate, but...science has agreed overwhelmingly on topics and theories in the past, only to be proven wrong later.

everyone agreeing doesn't equal being right.


This observation is logically correct, but not very useful in practice. No, scientists agreeing on something does not mathematically prove its validity. But it makes it much more likely to be true. While scientific consensus is sometimes wrong, most of the time it is right. (Or at least approximately correct at the level the question is being asked at the time ... as in Newtonian vs. Einsteinian physics.)
 
2012-12-11 04:04:16 PM  
All I need to know about global warming is right there in the crowd that denies it.
 
2012-12-11 04:04:39 PM  
I think it would be stupid to try and say the Earth's climate isn't changing.

The Earth is really old, and it's gone through a wide spectrum of climates. Many of which would make human life impossible, nearly impossible, or just really, really, really damn hard.

The meaningful debate is to what degree human's are impacting it, which actions of ours are contributing to it, what is the cost/benefit ratio to altering our lifestyles/developing new technologies to prevent it. Then it gets harder. In a perfect, fictional world, maybe we'd just achieve a perfect balance with nature and have a 'zero impact' lifestyle. Whatever that means. But a lot of people would die. We can't go 100% green without abandoning a lot of technology. A lot of people would support this - no pesticides or genetically modified crops that yield 8x the food....even though it means lots more starving people. And in our imperfect world, there are lots of *other* problems. At least, potential problems....like overpopulation, poverty, violence, disease, oppression, terrorism, really hard math problems, I mean, there's a lot of 'stuff' we don't know that we spend resources on.

So, it's not enough to say, 'Oh yeah - there is global warming'.

I'm not a scientist and I don't think global warming is a particularly interesting topic; but a lot of what I have researched makes me think a lot of people are f***ing retarded when it comes to the topic. Recycling, especially paper, is a bad thing. Carbon offsets is a retarded thing. Hybrids largely suck. The majority of people I know who claim to be environmentalist against Global Warming are just smug hypocrites. I know it's an anecdote and it's stereotypical, but most of the hybrid owners and recyclists have the largest carbon footprints. 2600 sq ft. house for a family of four with AC and a sprinkler system, four cars between them all, annual family vacation, every iDevice imaginable.....but will include the 'Please think before printing this e-mail' signature and tell me not to throw away paper when I could put it in the recycle bin.
 
2012-12-11 04:05:00 PM  

qorkfiend: What sort of examples of the scientific consensus being wrong did you have in mind?


I can give one. Continental Drift, the precursor to plate tectonics, was roundly brow beaten.

Of course that was when publishing and research was much, much harder to fund.
 
2012-12-11 04:05:09 PM  
Chocolate Silk Pecan Pie

Crust
1 box Pillsbury® refrigerated pie crusts, softened as directed on box

Pecan Filling
2 eggs 1/3 cup granulated sugar 1/2 cup dark corn syrup 3 tablespoons butter or margarine, melted 1/8 teaspoon salt, if desired 1/2 cup chopped pecans

Chocolate Filling
1 cup hot milk 1/4 teaspoon vanilla 1 bag (12 oz) semisweet chocolate chips (2 cups)
Topping
1 cup whipping cream 2 tablespoons powdered sugar 1/4 teaspoon vanilla Chocolate curls, if desired


1
Heat oven to 350°F. Place pie crust in 9-inch glass pie plate as directed on box for One-Crust Filled Pie.

2
In small bowl, beat eggs with electric mixer on medium speed until well blended. Add granulated sugar, corn syrup, butter and salt; beat 1 minute. Stir in pecans. Pour into crust-lined pie plate. Cover crust edge with 2- to 3-inch-wide strips of foil to prevent excessive browning; remove foil during last 15 minutes of bake time.

3
Bake 40 to 55 minutes or until center of pie is puffed and golden brown. Cool 1 hour.

4
Meanwhile, in blender or food processor, place chocolate filling ingredients. Cover; blend about 1 minute or until smooth. Refrigerate until mixture is slightly thickened but not set, about 1 hour 30 minutes.

5
Gently stir chocolate filling; pour over cooled pecan filling in crust. Refrigerate at least 1 hour or until firm before serving.

6
Just before serving, in small bowl, beat whipping cream, powdered sugar and 1/4 teaspoon vanilla with mixer on high speed until stiff peaks form. Spoon or pipe whipped cream over filling. Garnish with chocolate curls. Cover and refrigerate any remaining pie.
 
2012-12-11 04:05:27 PM  
Personally, I think the evidence for climate change is overwhelming, and I really thought this video does a good job of discussing it: Climate Change Is Simple: Remix.

However, to this:

FTFA:

Now I know some people will just say that this is due to mainstream scientists suppressing controversy and all that, but let me be succinct: That's bull. Science thrives on dissenting ideas, it grows and learns from them. If there is actual evidence to support an idea, it gets published.

I can only say:

www.clker.com

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

/scientist
//that's how I thought too
///before I became involved in academia
////easy example: drug studies
 
2012-12-11 04:05:46 PM  
Oznog:
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.

But science in 1977 consisted of hitting rocks together. Today we have internets and such.
 
2012-12-11 04:05:50 PM  
Oh sure - "peer" reviews!
i1151.photobucket.com
`...and I'll fudge the equation right here so I can concur with your analysis, good ol' "peer" of mine.'

`Like "best-peers-forever" or BPF, amirite?'
 
2012-12-11 04:06:15 PM  

wvskyguy: The earth has been experiencing hot and cold cycles since the beginning of time. Scientists cut down trees today and can see that for themselves, and they can see that MAN had nothing to do with it. Move along, nothing to see here.


You may want to reflect on the fact that climate scientists are both aware of natural cycles, and also believe that humans can alter those cycles. Ponder how these two observations can be consistent with each other and you may learn something.
 
2012-12-11 04:06:58 PM  

dogfather_jr: While it's possible that the earth is warming as a direct result of man, there's no proof that the miles will come off just by putting the car on blocks in reverse.


That's actually the whole point. Anything above a 2 degrees C increase (which we're set to blow past) and there's a very real possibility that certain positive feedback loops would be set in motion. For example, the Siberian permafrost melts, releasing the methane underneath, further melting the permafrost, and so on. White sea ice (that reflects energy) melts and turns into blue sea water (that absorbs energy), further melting the ice, and so on.

If these positive feedback loops were set in motion we could end all emissions in a day and it wouldn't matter any more. The planet would continue to warm regardless of any action we took. It would be out of our hands completely.
 
2012-12-11 04:07:22 PM  
M'kay...let me see a pie chart depicting how many studies denying climate change were also denied federal funding vs. studies that sought to confirm it. Because it may very well be that the reason there were only 24 studies denying climate change is that funding was not equally dispersed.

As someone above said, just because you see concensus doesn't mean that you have scientific validity.

In addition, even if you take global warming as a given, there is still no conclusive data to indicate a specific cause, nor is there conclusive data to indicate that it will continue to rise. So until science has something concretely useful to offer on this subject they really shouldn't expect anything but derision and mockery.
 
2012-12-11 04:07:24 PM  
I remember snow.
 
2012-12-11 04:07:51 PM  
From the late, great George Carlin...


"We're so self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I'm tired of this shiat. I'm tired of f-ing Earth Day. I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shiat about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles ... hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages ... And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn't going anywhere. WE are!

We're going away. Pack your shiat, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam ... The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?"

Plastic... asshole."
 
2012-12-11 04:09:10 PM  

Endive Wombat: BigBurrito: Endive Wombat: All I am going to add to this is that my understanding about those who question global warming is this (and let's be honest, it is a major sticking point): What is its cause and what, if anything can we do about it?

I believe many people have stopped worrying about the cause, and very, very few holdouts cling to denying its existence.

The consequences of global warming are still very much up for debate, even within the sciences. What happens, when does it happen, and what may change the outcome? Hell, if we have a very large Volcanic eruption the ash will cool the atmosphere. T

I think that is where the former deniers are moving to. Better to debate future consequences, that can be neither proved or disproved. Kind of like conspiracy theories, it has the ability to grab peoples imaginations. That is a good and fun thing and has the benefit of enabling research to proceed without as much political interference.


Well, several hundred years ago, the Earth was warmed (Medieval Warm Period) and cooled (Little Ice Age) with what I think most people will agree as zero influence by humans as we were not contributing much to the total Earth's CO2 output at that point in time. 

Again, with what little I have studied, I am more apt to believe that sun spots and other Earthly/Nature based factors contribute 98% of global warming. While I am not denying the fact that we more than likely contribute somewhat to Global Warming...I just suspect that there are other, much larger factors at play that try as we may, we will never be able to overcome and will have almost zero ability to do anything about it.


Its too bad we haven't been monitering the suns output for decades now. It would be really cool if we could just rule this kind of shiat out.
 
2012-12-11 04:09:33 PM  
Climate change is real, no question about it, and has been since the earth was formed. MAN MADE/CAUSED/PREVENTABLE climate change, on the other hand, is the stuff of legendary hoax....
 
2012-12-11 04:09:55 PM  
www.sciencebuddies.org

In case you've all forgotten, here's a first-grade diagram. Recognizing a relationship does not prove NOT solid cause and effect...

Even the science god Bill Nye neglects the mention when he's farking famous again as an "I thought he was dead!" legend,
 
2012-12-11 04:10:19 PM  
Joe Blowme: Oh,... its just a consensus graph, i thought it might have actual facts and science attached.


------------------


The graph represents the science that is out there, you deliberately obtuse twit.

Haven't you figured out that nobody believes you people any more? Our President isn't getting any whiter and the science isn't going away. But enjoy tilting at your windmills and helping the GOP implode.
 
2012-12-11 04:11:24 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.


Just to be clear, this is your logic:

1) Premise: Climatologists have been wrong in the past.
2) Conclusion: Climatologists are wrong now.

Is that correct? If so, every single field of science is SCREWED (especially physics!) ZOMG PANIC!!!!11ONE1

www.elevenwarriors.com
 
2012-12-11 04:12:39 PM  

dogfather_jr: The idea that modifying our actions will allow us to act as some sort of global thermostat is ludicrous.


Not so ludicrous. We can certainly reverse global warming by eliminating CO2 emissions. And by increasing them, we can very likely forestall ice ages. (Though we'd want to do that intelligently, not burning them all at once.) We probably could even out the ice age cycle completely if we tried.

Instead of arguing about the effects that these changes will have - some inevitable, some possibly not inevitable - I think we as a species are far better off trying to figure out how to live in a changing world.

Adaptation is important and will be necessary, but overall, when talking about major global changes, prevention is less painful than adaptation.

While it's possible that the earth is warming as a direct result of man, there's no proof that the miles will come off just by putting the car on blocks in reverse.

The laws of physics work in both directions. If increasing CO2 warms the planet, decreasing CO2 will cool it. If "tipping points" exist, then not everything will be irreversible just by returning to the original state. (If we melt a major ice sheet, then returning to a pre-industrial climate won't recreate it; we'd need a new ice age to do that.) That argues for halting the CO2 increase before many tipping points have been passed.
 
2012-12-11 04:12:39 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: SO MANY assumptions.


You don't think that humans are adaptable? We do not live in a variety of climates many of which many are not suited to us? We are static and do not change?

What is the assumption, other than me poking a stick at the God comment?
 
2012-12-11 04:12:52 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: All I need to know about global warming is right there in the crowd that denies it.


[clap]

You mean the crowd that used numbers to prove Mitt Romney was going to win last month?
 
2012-12-11 04:12:54 PM  

jwest13: Climate change is real, no question about it, and has been since the earth was formed. MAN MADE/CAUSED/PREVENTABLE climate change, on the other hand, is the stuff of legendary hoax....


What alternate mechanism do you propose to explain observed warming?
 
2012-12-11 04:13:30 PM  
FTA: "Science thrives on dissenting ideas, it grows and learns from them...."

SHUT UP DENIER!!!!


www.theinquirer.net
 
2012-12-11 04:14:31 PM  

fiver5: OK fine you win, climate change is real.

So lets all give more money to the government.


This is your brain on conservatism kids. Remember to just say no!

/ And they are
// How's that Old White People's Party thing workin for ya?
 
2012-12-11 04:14:41 PM  
So... you're telling me there's a chance?
 
2012-12-11 04:15:16 PM  
The problem is global warming.

The solution is to drink snake oil till you die of alcohol poisoning, and if that doesn't work, get force-fed Jim Jones Kool-Aid at gunpoint.

/there are too many people, so some of you will have to die
//yes, some of YOU people
///I have guns, money, and the law on my side, so if you want to sacrifice me on your altars to Mother Gaia, bring it on
 
2012-12-11 04:15:16 PM  

BigBurrito: many of which many


I said many twice.
 
2012-12-11 04:16:12 PM  
Bullshiat Time Magazine cover is bullshiat.

Here is the real one:
i.imgur.com
Here's the source
 
2012-12-11 04:17:04 PM  

rotsky: I'll always have, in the back of my mind, the fact that some scientists faked their data a couple years ago.

I'm not an idiot, it just made me skeptical.


There is no facepalm image epic enough to display the level of facepalm this deserves.
 
2012-12-11 04:17:22 PM  
BunkoSquad: Insatiable Jesus: All I need to know about global warming is right there in the crowd that denies it.

[clap]

You mean the crowd that used numbers to prove Mitt Romney was going to win last month?



---------------


And who used numbers to prove that de-regulation of the financial industry would make us all rich. And who used numbers to convince us that becoming a "service economy" by shipping half our manufacturing to communist China would make our lives better. I struggle to find any example of modern conservatism being correct about anything.
 
2012-12-11 04:17:42 PM  
Deniers and birthers have to deny and birth....
 
2012-12-11 04:17:54 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.



Be careful that "scientific fact" isn't necessarily what is covered in the popular media, nor what is taught in elementary school. A much better metric would be the state of the literature at the time:

mind.ofdan.ca
From Peterson et al. 2008. The majority of the literature at the time pointed towards warming, which suggests the impression you got back then might not have been an accurate representation of scientific knowledge at that time.

All that aside, be aware that the cover on the left in the picture you posted is a fake.
 
2012-12-11 04:18:05 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Journey with me, subby, back to the early 1600s. .... The sun IS at the center of the universe.

So think about it. If you were to take your fancy little pie chart and p ...


Inspired. That should go in the Christmas Newsletter.
 
2012-12-11 04:18:36 PM  
Okay warmers! If fossil fuels are making the earth hotter, what's making it warmer on Mars?
 
2012-12-11 04:19:06 PM  
img.timeinc.net
 
2012-12-11 04:19:11 PM  

Thunderpipes: Endive Wombat: 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.

The only thing that I have read on this that makes the most sense to even the hardest skeptic is that the Earth can handle only so much CO2 before shiat starts to change, and that humans, while only contributing a tiny, tiny amount may be the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back"

It has happened in the past, will again. The Earth is perfectly capable of responding to CO2. We have had mega greenhouse periods in the past you know, we did not just turn in to Venus.


exactly! The earth will go on just fine.
When we're gone God will probably create a new kind of life that can thrive in the new environment.
People just get hung-up on trying to preserve human civilization.
 
2012-12-11 04:19:27 PM  
Spanky_McFarksalot:

Not that I think man-made climate change is a lie, I do think we are screwing up the climate, but...science has agreed overwhelmingly on topics and theories in the past, only to be proven wrong later.

everyone agreeing doesn't equal being right.

/again, I am not a denier.


Well, there have been reasons for people to be wrong in the past. Columbus couldn't see the world from space, so perhaps he could doubt the world was spherical... a lot...

But we're actually at a point where we understand both the observations and how to interpret them better.

We've been working on the observational problem for a long time. It's been important to military sorts all over the world, and they keep good records. Scientists have been doing doubly so for the last 150+ years.

When you subtract out everything we understand of "natural cycles" including yes, the Sun, the Milankovich Cycles, Vulcanism, etcetera.... Whatever some dumbass claims scientists never figured in, there's still a discrepancy. That would be the part that we're doing that corresponds with burning more fossil fuels in a century than it took in tens of millennium to lay down in the first place.
 
2012-12-11 04:20:07 PM  
olddinosaur: Okay warmers! If fossil fuels are making the earth hotter, what's making it warmer on Mars?



--------------------


Hey, a scientist has showed up to help us all understand this.
 
2012-12-11 04:20:29 PM  

fiver5: OK fine you win, climate change is real.

So lets all give more money to the government.


transitionculture.org
 
2012-12-11 04:20:32 PM  
1) even in global dimmings heyday, a plurality of papers predicted that any cooling would be temporary, eventually outweighed by co2 driven warming.

2) even the ones wrongly claiming we would aggravate natural cooling trends and start an ice age weren't wholly wrong, it is an observable phenomenon. For a cool example check out the temperature data for the week of 9/11 when all the planes were grounded.
 
2012-12-11 04:20:45 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Vodka Zombie: I don't know how much humans are responsible for climate change, and I don't know if that really even matters anyway.

It does matter. If you don't think that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere causes the earth to get warmer, you won't think there's any reason to stop emitting them.


I don't think that people have a real problem with cutting emissions, the problem is cutting whatever services that are involved in creating those emissions. I wish the US had more wind/solar/tidal/geothermal power available to help offset current needs.

Find me something that i can run my car off of that is economical to use and i'll use it.

Hydrogen is the perfect fuel, but we can't find a way to get it without burning a bunch of fossil fuels currently.
 
2012-12-11 04:20:55 PM  

pastorkius: Bullshiat Time Magazine cover is bullshiat.

Here is the real one:
[i.imgur.com image 296x392]
Here's the source


Whoops you beat me to it.
 
2012-12-11 04:21:05 PM  

Oznog: 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.


In fact, it was not scientific fact at the time, which you can see by looking at the scientific papers published on the subject from that time.

P.S. The "coming ice age" TIME cover is fake.
 
2012-12-11 04:21:52 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Joe Blowme: Oh,... its just a consensus graph, i thought it might have actual facts and science attached.


------------------


The graph represents the science that is out there, you deliberately obtuse twit.

Haven't you figured out that nobody believes you people any more? Our President isn't getting any whiter and the science isn't going away. But enjoy tilting at your windmills and helping the GOP implode.


What you mean.... YOU PEOPLE? farking racist bastard.
And the graph is made up dude. It is only stating how many articles pro got published and how many con got published. I was unawared the scientific method tells us to stop asking questions once we had a consensus and publication, you would have gotten along great with the flat earthers and the church at the time.
 
2012-12-11 04:22:09 PM  
I don't doubt that the climate is changing, i simply doubt that we fully understand why. We only have a few hundred years of recorded history, and even less of that directly pertains to the environment, The rest is supposition based off of geological and anthropological studies. And all of this is meant to make us think we know what is normal in the lifespan of a planet?

I cant help but feel that this is like looking at one month in the life of a 14 year old to try and determine what its entire history was and will be, as well as why.

That doesn't mean that the concerns of environmentalists are wrong, if anything they are good ideas for their own sake. It just means, in my mind, that we aren't able to truly say there is a direct correlation between some things.
 
2012-12-11 04:22:45 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.



I'm well over 40 myself and if I recall correctly even back then scientist were crying BS on global cooling. There were a few fringe scientist that were largely discrediteded based upon peer review that were claiming new ice age. The press loved it as it was sensationalism and ran with it.
 
2012-12-11 04:23:06 PM  

olddinosaur: Okay warmers! If fossil fuels are making the earth hotter, what's making it warmer on Mars?


Short answer: It's probably not warming on Mars.
 
2012-12-11 04:23:20 PM  
Climate change, Texas style:

If you don't like the weather, wait ten minutes.
 
2012-12-11 04:23:23 PM  

Lucky LaRue: All that shows is scientist are worse than the average population when it comes to group-think.


You know how I know you don't know any scientist? They are the most contentious and skeptical people you will ever meet. All but the worst ones are skeptical of anything that goes against their experience, which is why they insist on peer review. The process can be brutal and not for the thin-skinned.
 
2012-12-11 04:24:31 PM  
My neocon friend, who, at times, I barely resist slapping in the back of the head, is convinced that scientists are making up global warming so they can get their sweet, sweet hands on some of that grant money. He apparently believes that grant money comes in massive blocks and that a scientist uses it not for research, but to buy himself nice things. He told me once that he wanted to be a scientist so he could use the grant money to buy himself a bigger house.
 
2012-12-11 04:24:39 PM  

olddinosaur: Okay warmers! If fossil fuels are making the earth hotter, what's making it warmer on Mars?


Large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, the same gas predominately released from the burning of fossil fuels here on Earth?
 
2012-12-11 04:25:17 PM  

Chigau: I don't doubt that the climate is changing, i simply doubt that we fully understand why. We only have a few hundred years of recorded history, and even less of that directly pertains to the environment, The rest is supposition based off of geological and anthropological studies. And all of this is meant to make us think we know what is normal in the lifespan of a planet?

I cant help but feel that this is like looking at one month in the life of a 14 year old to try and determine what its entire history was and will be, as well as why.

That doesn't mean that the concerns of environmentalists are wrong, if anything they are good ideas for their own sake. It just means, in my mind, that we aren't able to truly say there is a direct correlation between some things.



You're bringing up an important point, but be aware that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on simple correlation, but instead understanding of the underlying mechanisms and processes.
 
2012-12-11 04:25:42 PM  

Surly U. Jest: pastorkius: Bullshiat Time Magazine cover is bullshiat.

Here is the real one:
[i.imgur.com image 296x392]
Here's the source

Whoops you beat me to it.


Nah, it bears repeating, that image crops up every GW thread. Especially since it's such a lazy shop that they didn't even try to make it look like an actual copy of Time from the '70s - a truly unforgivable sin.
 
2012-12-11 04:25:50 PM  
Step right up and get your denier arguments invalidated. Link
 
2012-12-11 04:26:17 PM  
olddinosaur:

Okay warmers! If fossil fuels are making the earth hotter, what's making it warmer on Mars?

The same process that's leading to it's cooling down since you read that talking point, namely aphelion?

Seriously... Have you ever researched anything you say before deciding "Yeah! The world must hear my unrehearsed wisdom!" THEY MUST KNOW WHAT I READ FROM A RE:RE:RE:! 

Stop that.
 
2012-12-11 04:26:38 PM  
So you think reason and logic will sway a climate change doubter? Subby, you are adorable!
 
2012-12-11 04:26:56 PM  
Joe Blowme: And the graph is made up dude. It is only stating how many articles pro got published and how many con got published. I was unawared the scientific method tells us to stop asking questions once we had a consensus and publication, you would have gotten along great with the flat earthers and the church at the time.

---------------


I wonder how many scientists are out there still trying to prove the earth is flat? I wonder why?


PS - Our President, still black. Enjoy.
 
2012-12-11 04:26:56 PM  

Chigau: I don't doubt that the climate is changing, i simply doubt that we fully understand why. We only have a few hundred years of recorded history, and even less of that directly pertains to the environment, The rest is supposition based off of geological and anthropological studies. And all of this is meant to make us think we know what is normal in the lifespan of a planet?

I cant help but feel that this is like looking at one month in the life of a 14 year old to try and determine what its entire history was and will be, as well as why.

That doesn't mean that the concerns of environmentalists are wrong, if anything they are good ideas for their own sake. It just means, in my mind, that we aren't able to truly say there is a direct correlation between some things.


The system is beyond our understanding, so lets cross our fingers and add a couple gigatons of co2 to it.
 
2012-12-11 04:27:08 PM  
Climate changes, this is a fact. Warmer, colder, and everything in between. As it has for billions of years. Not many people argue against this point.

The argument comes in when you start discussing what effect mankind is or is not having.
 
2012-12-11 04:27:30 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.


It WAS NOT a "scientific fact" at the time. It was a study put forward by two scientists using very narrow time period for their data, and WAS NOT accepted by the majority of the scientific community. The majority of studies at that time, that had far less data to work from, still felt that we were moving toward global warning.

Thanks 1970s TIME cover, for helping the DERP along.....

/facepalm
 
2012-12-11 04:28:10 PM  
CheatCommando:
// How's that Old White People's Party thing workin for ya?


Why so racist?
 
2012-12-11 04:29:42 PM  

JackieRabbit: Lucky LaRue: All that shows is scientist are worse than the average population when it comes to group-think.

You know how I know you don't know any scientist? They are the most contentious and skeptical people you will ever meet. All but the worst ones are skeptical of anything that goes against their experience, which is why they insist on peer review. The process can be brutal and not for the thin-skinned.


How come neither of you don't know what the plural of the word "scientist" is?
 
2012-12-11 04:30:24 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Chigau: I don't doubt that the climate is changing, ......

That doesn't mean that the concerns of environmentalists are wrong, if anything they are good ideas for their own sake. It just means, in my mind, that we aren't able to truly say there is a direct correlation between some things.

The system is beyond our understanding, so lets cross our fingers and add a couple gigatons of co2 to it.


3/10
fail
 
2012-12-11 04:30:33 PM  
And then there's NASA's own GISS data from 2002-2012

img580.imageshack.us

For those people who are interested in what the, you know, actual scientific data say. 

Boy, look at it warm.
 
2012-12-11 04:32:18 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Joe Blowme: And the graph is made up dude. It is only stating how many articles pro got published and how many con got published. I was unawared the scientific method tells us to stop asking questions once we had a consensus and publication, you would have gotten along great with the flat earthers and the church at the time.

---------------


I wonder how many scientists are out there still trying to prove the earth is flat? I wonder why?


PS - Our President, still black. Enjoy.


You have to wonder? That explains alot about you. See, most scientist use teh scientific method which means they will keep questioning and testing and not just call it a day when they reach CONSENSUS. Now, get back in your moms basement, she will have your mac and cheese ready for you soon.
 
2012-12-11 04:32:29 PM  
May saw the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

Link
 
2012-12-11 04:32:50 PM  
The mass acceptance of a subject does not constitute that belief as factual.

/kudos for the flame thread
 
2012-12-11 04:33:03 PM  

vodka: The argument comes in when you start discussing what effect mankind is or is not having.


The graph FTA shows there is not much argument there either, at least among those with the best understanding of the science involved.
 
2012-12-11 04:33:27 PM  
SevenizGud: For those people who are interested in what the, you know, actual scientific data say. Boy, look at it warm.

------------------

Nothing like a GW thread to summon the Army of Stupid.
 
2012-12-11 04:33:27 PM  
"24 Reject Global Warming"

It should read "Percent of the population that fully understand the basic science and facts".
 
2012-12-11 04:33:57 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
Here's a nice .gif of the fake TIME cover.
Those using the fake should feel free to admit to being a complete buffoon.

/hot .gif
 
2012-12-11 04:34:03 PM  

SevenizGud: And then there's NASA's own GISS data from 2002-2012

[img580.imageshack.us image 748x379]

For those people who are interested in what the, you know, actual scientific data say. 

Boy, look at it warm.


Here's a longer time range.

data.giss.nasa.gov

You would have sucked at calculus.
 
2012-12-11 04:34:17 PM  

tobcc: 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.
Dont get me wrong, I think we as humans have changed the climate, but.. we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

//dont worry, I think we need to get off fosell fuels, and have clean air too
/// am a hippy (not really a dirty one though)


Um... no. We have climate data going back tens of thousands of years, in the form of tree rings, bubbles in antarctic ice, fossils...

We have written records going back several hundred years. So do yourself a favor and read up on the subject, or do the rest of us a favor and STFU.
 
2012-12-11 04:34:24 PM  

olddinosaur: Okay warmers! If fossil fuels are making the earth hotter, what's making it warmer on Mars?


Actually, Mars is very cold. It also has 0.6% of the atmospheric pressure of earth. Averige-ish of -60 degrees F.

Venus's atmosphere on the other hand is over 900% the density of Earth's and 800 degrees F hotter.

STILL NEITHER OF THESE THINGS PROVE CAUSE AND EFFECT. You see, there's these things called variables some people don't think matter...

scene.asu.edu 

/Standard method of scientific learning
 
2012-12-11 04:34:27 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: olddinosaur: Okay warmers! If fossil fuels are making the earth hotter, what's making it warmer on Mars?

Short answer: It's probably not warming on Mars.


If I recall the warming on Mars was due to bad data, but don't quote me on that one.
 
2012-12-11 04:35:06 PM  

Chigau: I don't doubt that the climate is changing, i simply doubt that we fully understand why. We only have a few hundred years of recorded history, and even less of that directly pertains to the environment, The rest is supposition based off of geological and anthropological studies. And all of this is meant to make us think we know what is normal in the lifespan of a planet?

I cant help but feel that this is like looking at one month in the life of a 14 year old to try and determine what its entire history was and will be, as well as why.

That doesn't mean that the concerns of environmentalists are wrong, if anything they are good ideas for their own sake. It just means, in my mind, that we aren't able to truly say there is a direct correlation between some things.


Look, I'm not saying internal combustion is impossible, I'm just saying that we simply do not fully understand how it happens. I just find it really hard to believe that we could have several chambers simultaneously taking a mixture of air and fuel, compressing this mixture, subsequently igniting it to produce power. I have seen what 20 gallons of gasoline can do and it doesn't just produce power, it is deadly. I just don't think we can look at all of these cars driving around and just assume that this is a safe and practical means of transportation. They are essentially rolling bombs. I think we should just wait until all of the science is in on this before we all rush out to dealerships and start purchasing these automobiles. And when we do get to this point, there better not be ANYONE telling me that the exhaust produced by these engines negatively affect air quality, carbon levels, etc. My mind will be made up at that point.

Things I do not understand are impossible, but once I understand it, NOTHING will change my mind.

/taking foot off of the sarcasm pedal
 
2012-12-11 04:35:15 PM  

Rent Party: Endive Wombat: BigBurrito: Endive Wombat: All I am going to add to this is that my understanding about those who question global warming is this (and let's be honest, it is a major sticking point): What is its cause and what, if anything can we do about it?

I believe many people have stopped worrying about the cause, and very, very few holdouts cling to denying its existence.

The consequences of global warming are still very much up for debate, even within the sciences. What happens, when does it happen, and what may change the outcome? Hell, if we have a very large Volcanic eruption the ash will cool the atmosphere. T

I think that is where the former deniers are moving to. Better to debate future consequences, that can be neither proved or disproved. Kind of like conspiracy theories, it has the ability to grab peoples imaginations. That is a good and fun thing and has the benefit of enabling research to proceed without as much political interference.


Well, several hundred years ago, the Earth was warmed (Medieval Warm Period) and cooled (Little Ice Age) with what I think most people will agree as zero influence by humans as we were not contributing much to the total Earth's CO2 output at that point in time. 

Again, with what little I have studied, I am more apt to believe that sun spots and other Earthly/Nature based factors contribute 98% of global warming. While I am not denying the fact that we more than likely contribute somewhat to Global Warming...I just suspect that there are other, much larger factors at play that try as we may, we will never be able to overcome and will have almost zero ability to do anything about it.

You are talking about a smaller change in temperatures over a much longer period of time.

[whyfiles.org image 510x515]

That is a brilliant chart, as it shows not only the current trends, which tie quite nicely to the industrial revolution, but also the medieval warming periods you are so eager to hang your hat on.

No doubt you can ...


.
If I'm reading that correctly, about 0.6 degrees. And data pre 1989 is open to interpretation for a number of reasons, so could be more or less than half a degree, could be 50 degrees for all we know.
 
2012-12-11 04:35:38 PM  

Chigau: I don't doubt that the climate is changing, i simply doubt that we fully understand why. We only have a few hundred years of recorded history, and even less of that directly pertains to the environment, The rest is supposition based off of geological and anthropological studies. And all of this is meant to make us think we know what is normal in the lifespan of a planet?


Attribution of the current climate change to humans isn't primarily based on comparing what's happening now to what's "normal". It's based on a physical analysis of the sources of warming within the climate system. We can see, from direct observation, that the heat isn't coming from the Sun, the oceans, etc. This, combined with a physical understanding of the greenhouse effect, and some of its indirect consequences (spectral changes in the top-of-atmosphere radiation flux, stratospheric cooling, etc.), is what leads to an attribution to humans.
 
2012-12-11 04:36:03 PM  
FTA:" when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they're doing isn't science"

HAHahhahahahahah climate gate
 
2012-12-11 04:36:05 PM  
Al Gore choose carbon trading for some sound financial reasons. 1. long term trends show an increase in co2 levels the ice record shows a long term increase in levels followed by a big drop then long term rise again . 2. Plants live on co2 giving a built in regulator to the level . 3. We are in the warming phase after the ice age . So you set up a market to trade a natural substance that 7 billion people on the planet generate and cause animals they eat to generate . Fly around in a 767 and tell every one to cut back their use , mean while take a percentage of the action and Profit .
Nixon gave us the EPA most hatted agency next to IRS but we have clean air and water for the most part.
Why is there not a push for more shade trees to consume the co2 and give us o2 or is that a too too proactive fix that people can do with out the guberment.
 
2012-12-11 04:36:12 PM  
alabasterblack:

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.

It WAS NOT a "scientific fact" at the time. It was a study put forward by two scientists using very narrow time period for their data, and WAS NOT accepted by the majority of the scientific community. The majority of studies at that time, that had far less data to work from, still felt that we were moving toward global warning.

Thanks 1970s TIME cover, for helping the DERP along.....

/facepalm


Worst part about this, pretty much the saddest.... he's lying *and knows he's doing it.*. There was no time in his life where he was freaked out about some coming ice age claimed by pop sci magazines. I grew up in the 60's and 70's and if we're trading anecdotes, no, sorry. That wasn't an issue.

It's a convenient point for people to misrepresemember. "OH HELL YEAH! THEM SCIENTESTS SAID WE WERE ALL GONNA FREEZE" is the way they remember it after an evening of AM radio, and It becomes the new reality.
 
2012-12-11 04:36:38 PM  
Every scientific paper in the past 20 years has used the same measurement for the speed of light.

Talk about groupthink. Scientists can't handle my theories. The Man is holding me down dogs.
 
2012-12-11 04:36:41 PM  
Joe Blowme: I wonder how many scientists are out there still trying to prove the earth is flat? I wonder why?PS - Our President, still black. Enjoy.


You have to wonder? That explains alot about you. See, most scientist use teh scientific method which means they will keep questioning and testing and not just call it a day when they reach CONSENSUS. Now, get back in your moms basement, she will have your mac and cheese ready for you soon.



-----------

You're the one who threw the Flat Earth out there. So, answer the question. If, as you say, scientists keep questioning and testing, why aren't they still trying to prove the earth is flat?

Yeah, thought so.
 
2012-12-11 04:36:45 PM  

rotsky: I'll always have, in the back of my mind, the fact that some scientists faked their data a couple years ago.

I'm not an idiot, it just made me skeptical.


/Pet peeve.
 
2012-12-11 04:37:07 PM  

olddinosaur: Okay warmers! If fossil fuels are making the earth hotter, what's making it warmer on Mars?


Increased vehicular emissions. Vehicle traffic on Mars is infinitely worse than it was just 10 years ago.
 
2012-12-11 04:37:38 PM  

Geotpf: How come neither of you don't know what the plural of the word "scientist" is?


I don't know. Why don't we ask some scienticians to study it?
 
2012-12-11 04:37:45 PM  
Okay, so we all agree that climate change really is happening, and that the only viable solution is to give all of your money to Amos Quito.

Correct?
 
2012-12-11 04:38:26 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Chigau: I don't doubt that the climate is changing, i simply doubt that we fully........ if anything they are good ideas for their own sake. It just means, in my mind, that we aren't able to truly say there is a direct correlation between some things.

You're bringing up an important point, but be aware that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on simple correlation, but instead understanding of the underlying mechanisms and processes.


Fair enough, and as I attempted to state before most environmental measures are a good idea for their own sake. From what i have observed, as i did spend some time working in the planetary science labs in college (it was just a job, not really my thing in life) much of the time the researchers were still making a guess, a reasonably logical guess, about what some of those mechanism might be or how they work.

I'm all for trying to make a better world, i just have trouble believing that anyone in current day science truly knows what is normal for a life bearing planet considering our limited frame of reference.


... or did i miss some major discovery of other life in space?
 
2012-12-11 04:38:26 PM  

SlothB77: [thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]


You aren't supposed to remember that. (As I do too.)

They'll either start calling you names, or accusing you of making it up.

Also, I'll say it again.

Consensus != Scientific Truth.

Also, for you AGW folks. Just what event, event or data would falsify AGW? In other words, how would we know if Global Warming stopped?
 
2012-12-11 04:38:36 PM  
Here's my take on global warming:

1. It's real.
2. It's man made.
3. It is not possible to stop.

To slow down or reverse global warming, a good starting place for the United States would be to completely ban coal power plants and add a five dollar a gallon tax on gasoline.

Of course, that's also completely politically impossible.

Wait...it gets better.

Even if we actually did that, global warming won't stop unless China, India, Russia, the Middle East, Australia, Europe, Japan, South Korea, and everybody else don't also take similiarly drastic steps.

So, until somebody invents Mr. Fusion, we probably should plan more on mitigating the damage (like building sea walls and moving populations from low lying areas) than at the futile task of stopping it in the first place.
 
2012-12-11 04:38:49 PM  

Ambitwistor: wvskyguy: The earth has been experiencing hot and cold cycles since the beginning of time. Scientists cut down trees today and can see that for themselves, and they can see that MAN had nothing to do with it. Move along, nothing to see here.

You may want to reflect on the fact that climate scientists are both aware of natural cycles, and also believe that humans can alter those cycles. Ponder how these two observations can be consistent with each other and you may learn something.


Woah, slow down there. Reflect on facts? Learn something? We'll have none of that!
 
2012-12-11 04:39:20 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-11 04:39:27 PM  

rotsky: I'll always have, in the back of my mind, the fact that some scientists faked their data a couple years ago.

I'm Im not an idiot, it just made me skeptical.


/pet peeve
 
2012-12-11 04:39:40 PM  
In other words, it's time for today's two- minute hate!
 
2012-12-11 04:39:53 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Nothing like a GW thread to summon the Army of Stupid.


Because nothing says "stupid" like citing NASA's own data for 10+ years, amirite?
 
2012-12-11 04:40:02 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Joe Blowme: I wonder how many scientists are out there still trying to prove the earth is flat? I wonder why?PS - Our President, still black. Enjoy.


You have to wonder? That explains alot about you. See, most scientist use teh scientific method which means they will keep questioning and testing and not just call it a day when they reach CONSENSUS. Now, get back in your moms basement, she will have your mac and cheese ready for you soon.



-----------

You're the one who threw the Flat Earth out there. So, answer the question. If, as you say, scientists keep questioning and testing, why aren't they still trying to prove the earth is flat?

Yeah, thought so.


because they have proven it? It would be an axiom, unlike man made global warming, but something tells me you knew that and were just being a dick.
 
2012-12-11 04:41:26 PM  
What about the inherent bias of science journals to not publish a negative result?
 
2012-12-11 04:41:29 PM  

rotsky: I'll always have, in the back of my mind, the fact that some scientists faked their data a couple years ago.


Yeah, except that didn't actually happen.
 
2012-12-11 04:41:43 PM  

doyner: Sloth


DING, DING, DING, DING!
 
2012-12-11 04:41:52 PM  
Just for the record, the methodology produced to use this graphic states that after reading "some combination of titles, abstracts, and entire papers" 24 examples were judged to "reject human-caused global warming or professes to have a better explanation of observations" whereas the 14,000 "climate articles" merely returned a match on the topic of "global warming" and/or "global climate change".

The problem with this method/observation is that there are an infinite number of scientific/research topics that can bloom as sub-topics of global warming, if a mention of the topic is the only metric. A google search of "effects of global warming" will return thousands of abstracts/papers touching on all sorts of tangential effects at all types of scale, in which global warming would never be questioned by the reviewer, because it wasn't the focus of the study. Conversely, rejecting global warming is it's own singular subject, and it should take only a second's thought to understand why there might be drastically less scientists dedicated toward researching the tangential effects of no change.

Regardless of the issue, comparing articles that explicitly deny a topic to those that implicitly agree isn't a fair comparison, and this graphic and what it implies, is playing just as fast-and-loose with the definition of science as those it's attempting to impugn.
 
2012-12-11 04:42:27 PM  

lewismarktwo: What about the inherent bias of science journals to not publish a negative result?


"Climate change is X% attributable to natural factor Y" isn't a negative result.
 
2012-12-11 04:43:19 PM  
99/100 doctors tell you to cut back on the cholesterol or else you risk a heart attack - you acknowledge their expertise and believe them.

99/100 rocket scientists tell you if you take off in that rocket it will likely explode - you acknowledge their expertise and believe them.

99/100 climatologists tell you our actions are responsible for the accelerated warming of the earth - you dismiss their expertise and magically become an expert yourself.
 
2012-12-11 04:43:34 PM  

BravadoGT: Consensus =/= science. Still.


Actually, that is the very heart of science.
 
2012-12-11 04:44:23 PM  

thesloppy: A google search of "effects of global warming" will return thousands of abstracts/papers touching on all sorts of tangential effects at all types of scale, in which global warming would never be questioned by the reviewer, because it wasn't the focus of the study.


Yes, good point. A more relevant study would focus specifically on the detection and attribution literature. However, there has been at least one other such study that broke them down into "pro", "anti", and "netural" (with the vast majority of papers being neutral"); "pro" still outweighed "anti" by a large margin IIRC.
 
2012-12-11 04:44:54 PM  
Replace "peer reviewd climate articles" with:

Scientists who believe earth is flat.
Scientists who believe in "Germ Theory".
Scientists who believe ulcers are caused by bacteria.
Scientists who believe quantum physics is accurate.

etc etc etc

In science, consensus isn't as powerful as you'd like to think.
 
2012-12-11 04:45:18 PM  
Love how liberals believe this is a slam dunk refutation when it is simply a refutation of their own strawman argument.

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

The argument is amplitude of change and risk quotient involved.

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

Such a stupid argument.
 
2012-12-11 04:46:30 PM  

Kazan: zedster: tobcc: we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

WRONG!! Ice core samples, we have data going back 800,000 years

and the the formation of rocks helps us know about carbon and temperature levels as well. we get back much further than 800k with that.


And anatomically modern humans date about 200,000 years back. The oldest remnants of civilization are about 6000 years old. Just to give scale.
 
2012-12-11 04:47:24 PM  

Diogenes: Book of Genesis:

9:11 I will establish my covenant with you; neither will all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the flood; neither will there any more be a flood to destroy the earth."

9:12 God said, "This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

9:13 I set my rainbow in the cloud, and it will be for a sign of a covenant between me and the earth.

9:14 It will happen, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow will be seen in the cloud,

9:15 and I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh, and the waters will no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

9:16 The rainbow will be in the cloud. I will look at it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth."

9:17 God said to Noah, "This is the token of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth."

I'll take God's solemn word over any egghead's any day.


And you'll take the word of that Nigerian prince trying to move money over any naysayers. I mean, the guy's a prince!
 
2012-12-11 04:47:35 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: 99/100 climatologists tell you our actions are responsible for the accelerated warming of the earth


Accelerated warming? There isn't any warming AT ALL.

img580.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-11 04:47:38 PM  
Interglacial is where it's at.
Link

We're currently on the back end of an interglacial period. We want to be farking warm. We should do anything humanly possible to keep it warm. The Earth's normal state is a ball of farking ice, with brief warm periods in between.

This is the Future that awaits our species. It is as inevitable as the sun rise, and there is nothing we can do stop it. We might delay it, but it's coming some time in the next few thousand years.

Earth as it normally is:
cosmology.net
 
2012-12-11 04:47:43 PM  

garkola: In science, consensus isn't as powerful as you'd like to think.


It's pretty powerful. You can come up with famous counterexamples, which are usually famous precisely because overturning a scientific consensus is rare. But most of the time it's correct.
 
2012-12-11 04:47:45 PM  

Joe Blowme: I was unawared the scientific method tells us to stop asking questions once we had a consensus and publication, you would have gotten along great with the flat earthers and the church at the time.


Funny thing: the claim in the graph, the article accompanying it, and this very thread, is not that "the issue is settled".

Bet you could evaluate the actual claim if you'd FARKING PAY ATTENTION FOR ONCE instead of just being a dick nonstop.
 
2012-12-11 04:47:47 PM  

maxheck: Worst part about this, pretty much the saddest.... he's lying *and knows he's doing it.*. There was no time in his life where he was freaked out about some coming ice age claimed by pop sci magazines. I grew up in the 60's and 70's and if we're trading anecdotes, no, sorry. That wasn't an issue.

It's a convenient point for people to misrepresemember. "OH HELL YEAH! THEM SCIENTESTS SAID WE WERE ALL GONNA FREEZE" is the way they remember it after an evening of AM radio, and It becomes the new reality.


The only time I truly remember global cooling being really raised was nuclear winter, but if that occurred there would be a few other issues to worry about.
 
2012-12-11 04:47:48 PM  
forums.radioreference.com
 
2012-12-11 04:48:12 PM  
a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7480535/81220851#c81220851" target="_blank">Foxxinnia: Every scientific paper in the past 20 years has used the same measurement for the speed of light.

Talk about groupthink. Scientists can't handle my theories. The Man is holding me down dogs.


He's tying me kangaroo down, too.
 
2012-12-11 04:48:14 PM  
Yeah, no shiat. We're still on the tail end of the last ice age, obviously we aren't done heating up yet.
 
2012-12-11 04:48:49 PM  

TabASlotB: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x404]
Here's a nice .gif of the fake TIME cover.
Those using the fake should feel free to admit to being a complete buffoon.

/hot .gif


They really replaced Tony Soprano with Frank Burns to make it look older? OK, that's funny. Pathetic and sad, but funny.
 
2012-12-11 04:49:09 PM  

Geotpf: JackieRabbit: Lucky LaRue: All that shows is scientist are worse than the average population when it comes to group-think.

You know how I know you don't know any scientist? They are the most contentious and skeptical people you will ever meet. All but the worst ones are skeptical of anything that goes against their experience, which is why they insist on peer review. The process can be brutal and not for the thin-skinned.

How come neither of you don't know what the plural of the word "scientist" is?


Can't type for shiat. It's scientistesis.
 
2012-12-11 04:49:36 PM  

SevenizGud: Dusk-You-n-Me: 99/100 climatologists tell you our actions are responsible for the accelerated warming of the earth

Accelerated warming? There isn't any warming AT ALL.

[img580.imageshack.us image 748x379]


One more time cause you clearly have a case of the stupids.

data.giss.nasa.gov
 
2012-12-11 04:49:54 PM  

SevenizGud: Accelerated warming? There isn't any warming AT ALL.


Yes there is. Just because you don't understand your unsourced 10 year timeline graph doesn't make this not true.


The average temperature of the Earth's surface increased by about 1.4°F (0.8°C) over the past 100 years, with about 1.0°F (0.6°C) of this warming occurring over just the past three decades. Link
 
2012-12-11 04:50:05 PM  
Can we all just admit that graphs going back one hundred years are just as intellectually dishonest as charts going back ten years?

/ to draw meaningful conclusions on the climate; you need to consider data from thousands of years
 
2012-12-11 04:50:31 PM  

SevenizGud: Insatiable Jesus: Nothing like a GW thread to summon the Army of Stupid.

Because nothing says "stupid" like citing NASA's own data for 10+ years, amirite?


Because 10 years is a great sample size when trying to prove global warming since the industrial revolution.
 
2012-12-11 04:51:24 PM  

iheartscotch: Can we all just admit that graphs going back one hundred years are just as intellectually dishonest as charts going back ten years?

/ to draw meaningful conclusions on the climate; you need to consider data from thousands of years


Why, when the globe hasn't been warming that long?

Industrial Revolution and increased carbon dioxide output, how does it work?
 
2012-12-11 04:52:27 PM  
The Earth has been warming up long before people had anything to do with it...
 
2012-12-11 04:52:55 PM  
Occupy Global Warning!!11!!!!!!1
 
2012-12-11 04:53:10 PM  

Nightsweat: The oldest remnants of civilization are about 6000 11000 years old


FTFY
 
2012-12-11 04:53:17 PM  

buck1138: One more time cause you clearly have a case of the stupids.


Another tard who can't distinguish the following from each other:

A. The earth NEVER warmed.

B. The earth is not PRESENTLY warming.
 
2012-12-11 04:53:44 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Journey with me, subby, back to the early 1600s. You remember studying the 1600s, right? It was a great time of science and learning, but it it was also a great time of scientific misunderstanding. The best of times and the worst of times, if you want to cite a book that's about to be a very, very big Christmas movie. If you're into that sort of gay musical thing, I mean. I'm certainly not, but whatever floats your boat.

But anyway, I distract myself. My point is that, back in the 1600s, everybody -- and I do mean everybody, every peasant and every scientist and every priest, every-freakin'-body--believed in something called Heliocentrism. Which basically was the belief that everything rotated around the sun. No, wait, that's the way it really is. It's the belief that everything rotates around the earth.

No, wait, I was right the first time. Heliocentrism is the belief that everything rotates around the sun, but it's not what everybody believed. Everybody believed that second thing I wrote, about stuff orbiting earth. I don't know what they called it. Earth-centrism maybe. Or Terra-centrism, scientists like using the word "Terra" instead of "Earth" because it's Latin and sounds fancier. But, so, everybody believed in Terra-centrism, and then along comes this guy named Galileo, had the gumption, the guts, the stones to stand up to the world and say NO. The universe is HELIOCENTRIC. Everything orbits the SUN, not the other way around!

Well, as you might imagine, people were pissed off. Nobody likes their entire universe being questioned. Galileo (his friends called him Leo) was imprisoned in his own house, which doesn't sound to bad until you realize they didn't have electricity back then. No TV, no radio, no internet. Imagine that. He was imprisoned for years. But he stuck to his guns. And, eventually, everybody realized that he was right, after all. The sun IS at the center of the universe.

So think about it. If you were to take your fancy little pie chart and publish it back in the 1600s, what would it look like? The red sliver, which represents plucky ol' Leo, would barely be there at all. And the massive black chunk would represent everybody else who thought he was wrong. AND HE WASN'T WRONG. So what's that tell?

Remember -- being correct means having the courage to stand up to the world when you know you're in the right. It means being the lone voice in a tempest, the single drop in an ocean. Learn from Leo, who was immortalized centuries later in Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, which tells the story of his struggle to shine truth into the world. I find him absolutely inspiring.


I'll tell you why you're an idiot.

An example of something means nothing. For example, once a plane crashed, you then say all other planes that are flying must crash. Of course this is foolish. Yet you're logic here is the same. Well it would be, except you are comparing a philosophical view versus a scientific view. You are comparing a time before telescopes with no scientific method to modern times. A time where there were no scientific journals or repeated experiments or standard controls. So that's why you're an idiot. There are shifts in scientific thinking still but where those gaps lie and where those shifts occur are usually suspected in the field such as the 1 gene 1 protein theory. Geneticists suspected more must be going on and the theory changed when there was enough data to shift the thought. Here there is next to no data to prove that agw isn't happening.
 
2012-12-11 04:54:15 PM  

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

You aren't supposed to remember that. (As I do too.)

They'll either start calling you names, or accusing you of making it up.

Also, I'll say it again.

Consensus != Scientific Truth.

Also, for you AGW folks. Just what event, event or data would falsify AGW? In other words, how would we know if Global Warming stopped?


You remember a Photoshopped fake cover of TIME?

What data would falsify anthropogenic climate change? A robust collection of worldwide data over a sufficient period of time indicating a de-coupling of the expected temperature increases from the continued increases in atmospheric CO2 (& CH4, etc.) that cannot be sufficiently explained by the myriad complex downstream events of climate warming (e.g., cloud albedo changes or other negative feedbacks). If a sufficient data set is developed that cannot be adequately explained by the current models, and a non-warming model can be devised that adequately explains prior data, the theoretical frameworks of global warming will crumble.

In the meantime, we have to go with the data we have, and the best explanations of that data, not the data we can imagine having and an explanation we wish were the case.
 
2012-12-11 04:54:46 PM  

SevenizGud: Dusk-You-n-Me: 99/100 climatologists tell you our actions are responsible for the accelerated warming of the earth

Accelerated warming? There isn't any warming AT ALL.

[img580.imageshack.us image 748x379]


Even i know you need a larger sample size than that to be able to claim anything.
 
2012-12-11 04:54:46 PM  

buck1138: You would have sucked at calculus.


I love that completely made-up chart. I laugh each time.
 
2012-12-11 04:54:57 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Because 10 years is a great sample size when trying to prove global warming since the industrial revolution.


Which is why the sample size is 8,000+, the number of stations.
 
2012-12-11 04:54:59 PM  

turnerdude69: The Earth has been warming up long before people had anything to do with it...


[citation needed]

Because 99% of scientists disagree with this idea. And have proof to back it up. What do you have?
 
2012-12-11 04:55:06 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Except for that study that was funded by the Koch brothers to try to disprove global warming


GAT_00: The Koch Brothers paid for a study to prove that global warming wasn't real.


citation needed on the bolded part
 
2012-12-11 04:55:24 PM  
I personally am looking forward to Time Magazine to help us out of this wave of Satanic Worship that they predicted about the time their sales drooped.

webringjustice.files.wordpress.com

Yes, let's talk about magazine hyperbole vs. science in the 70's. It will do your case wonders.
 
2012-12-11 04:55:32 PM  

Chigau: SevenizGud: Dusk-You-n-Me: 99/100 climatologists tell you our actions are responsible for the accelerated warming of the earth

Accelerated warming? There isn't any warming AT ALL.

[img580.imageshack.us image 748x379]

Even i know you need a larger sample size than that to be able to claim anything.


wow.. image fail

http://www.globalchange.gov/HighResImages/2-National-pg-27_right.jpg
 
2012-12-11 04:55:34 PM  

SlothB77: [thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]


Wow, you had to reach way back for that dead talking point, and you fell for a hoax image on top of it.

Congrats. Hey, you know that British chick hot killed herself over that radio prank? Well, you should be more humiliated than that. You know what to do.
 
2012-12-11 04:55:38 PM  

SevenizGud: cameroncrazy1984: Because 10 years is a great sample size when trying to prove global warming since the industrial revolution.

Which is why the sample size is 8,000+, the number of stations.


So, 8,000+ stations for 10 years proves that the globe hasn't been warming for the past 100-150?

Please proceed, governor.
 
2012-12-11 04:55:58 PM  
Guess I'll have to page Jon Snow.
 
2012-12-11 04:56:05 PM  
Here's a neat little experiment. Go to a nursing home and ask people what their opinion was about, say, civil rights protestors at the time. Were they for 'em, or agin 'em? Astonishingly, virtually everybody who was ever opposed in any way to the movement as a whole has died mysteriously in the meantime.

Sociologists do this kind of thing all the time. Obama polls at +2% on the day before the election, wins by +3%, and then a week later, amazingly, beats Romney by 15% in the "who did you vote for last week" poll. It works the other way, too. If you ask people who were old enough to vote in 1976, virtually none of them voted for Carter. Somebody get the ghost of Gerald Ford on the phone and tell him he's been retroactively elected!

Nobody ever rooted for O.J. Simpson. Penn State Football? Nah, I was never really a fan... I named all my sons "Joe" after Joe Rogan of Newsradio fame. And HELL NO, no American ever said that that Hitler guy was just what Germany needed to get back on its feet and we should let Europe take care of its own petty squabbles this time around.

The funny thing is, the people who do this aren't even really lying. The past just magically changes. And if you say, "well, I have you on film turning fire hoses on civil rights protestors," they'll shrug and say, "maybe I thought they'd appreciate being cooled down. Alabama summers are pretty hot, you know, and we didn't have air conditioning back then. Yes, that's right, I remember it now. They'd just gotten done frolicking with my friendly dogs."

Anyway, this is just a reminder for all the people letting themselves be drawn into arguments on this particular topic. You're not going to get the satisfaction of someone posting "ahh... I guess you're right" in response to your Epic Smackdown of Truth. And you're not even going to get the satisfaction of people coming around over time. They'll always have been there. "B-b-but we had HUGE fights about it!" "No way, man, I was sounding the alarm when you were still driving that gas-guzzling Prius you had. Remember? I voted for Romney, because he was a Republican, and Republicans were the first ones to take anthropogenic climate change seriously. *sigh* If only you'd listened..."
 
2012-12-11 04:56:20 PM  

hutchkc: The only time I truly remember global cooling being really raised was nuclear winter, but if that occurred there would be a few other issues to worry about.


There were two legitimate concerns that were tangled up in the media reporting at the time.

One is that geologists had started to realize that some climate changes in the glacial cycle were "abrupt", and this led to the possibility that the next ice age might come faster than expected. But they were still mostly thinking on thousand-year timescales.

The other is that climatologists had noticed that the planet was slightly cooling (which it really was), and atmospheric scientists had started to realize that air pollution (in particular, sulfate aerosols) might be responsible (by reflecting sunlight). If pollution continued to grow exponentially, this could cause a profound cooling. And they were right about this (although not exactly about the magnitude).

The thing is, humans reduced our sulfate emissions, and the human-driven global cooling went away. That is, the "prediction" didn't come to pass because humans did something about it. Somehow, skeptics don't reason by analogy to conclude that if humans clean up our CO2 emissions, the human-driven global warming will go away.

In any case, most scientists at the time thought the greenhouse effect would ultimately be the dominant factor, and the "impending ice age" was mostly a media-driven phenomenon.
 
2012-12-11 04:56:23 PM  

Joe Blowme: HAHahhahahahahah climate gate


HAHahhahahahahah, arrogant schmuck who can't be bothered to know that no data manipulation occurred, except in the minds of the easily-led.

Pay attention, dumbass!
 
2012-12-11 04:56:38 PM  

zedster: Nightsweat: The oldest remnants of civilization are about 6000 11000 years old

FTFY


I wasn't really thinking neolithic societies, more Egypt/Babylon/Sumeria, but OK. still pretty recent on the 800,000 year scale.
 
2012-12-11 04:57:00 PM  
Remember folks, those claiming that humans are not warming the planet are the same crowd of people that wants to stomp gays, burn atheists and return blacks to their rightful place as farm equipment.
 
2012-12-11 04:57:07 PM  

jigger: cameroncrazy1984: Except for that study that was funded by the Koch brothers to try to disprove global warming

GAT_00: The Koch Brothers paid for a study to prove that global warming wasn't real.

citation needed on the bolded part


The guy who ran the study was a skeptic. Until he did the study
 
2012-12-11 04:57:13 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: So, 8,000+ stations for 10 years proves that the globe hasn't been warming for the past 100-150?


Another tard who can't distinguish between "never warmed" and "currently warming".
 
2012-12-11 04:57:40 PM  
It's real, it's awesome so far, and there is no way in hell you're going to reverse it as more and more third world countries seek to industrialize.

You guys can keep bickering the small stuff while I short the snowboard market.
 
2012-12-11 04:57:43 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Journey with me, subby, back to the early 1600s...


This is why I love you so very, very much.
 
2012-12-11 04:58:37 PM  

Foxxinnia: Every scientific paper in the past 20 years has used the same measurement for the speed of light.


media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-11 04:58:40 PM  

sweetmelissa31: rotsky: I'm not an idiot, it just made me skeptical.

Are you skeptical about whether vaccines really don't cause autism too? I mean, autism rates have gone up, and vaccination rates have gone up. There are some scientists who think that vaccines cause autism. I'm just asking questions.


Is there a theory or theorum which could correlate rising populations with natural activity (such as climate change and disease in humans, especially STD's)? I can't think of one, but that seems to be what's happening.
 
2012-12-11 04:59:07 PM  

Xexi: The mass acceptance of a subject does not constitute that belief as factual.

/kudos for the flame thread


Then what does? How do you know what, if anything, is factual?
 
2012-12-11 04:59:12 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Remember folks, those claiming that humans are not warming the planet are the same crowd of people that wants to stomp gays, burn atheists and return blacks to their rightful place as farm equipment.


Remember folks, those claiming humans are warming the planet are the same crowd of people that murder and rape people.
 
2012-12-11 04:59:22 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Yeah, no shiat. We're still on the tail end of the last ice age, obviously we aren't done heating up yet.


Nice try. We reached peak interglacial temperatures about 8000 years ago and have been gradually cooling, on average, ever since. This also agrees with the Milankovitch orbital forcing, which is no longer in a "warming" phase.
 
2012-12-11 05:00:29 PM  
SevenizGud:

buck1138: One more time cause you clearly have a case of the stupids.

Another tard who can't distinguish the following from each other:

A. The earth NEVER warmed.

B. The earth is not PRESENTLY warming.

Ok. Is the Earth warming? We'll wait for your answer before asking the next question.
 
2012-12-11 05:00:46 PM  

OregonVet: buck1138: You would have sucked at calculus.

I love that completely made-up chart. I laugh each time.


Src. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

So Nasa totaly makes shiat up except between 2000 and 2012?
 
2012-12-11 05:00:48 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: turnerdude69: The Earth has been warming up long before people had anything to do with it...

[citation needed]

Because 99% of scientists disagree with this idea. And have proof to back it up. What do you have?


Geology?? There have been several ice ages and we are lucky enough to be in between the cycle...Pretty sure all scientist would agree with that...
 
2012-12-11 05:01:25 PM  

iheartscotch: Can we all just admit that graphs going back one hundred years are just as intellectually dishonest as charts going back ten years?

/ to draw meaningful conclusions on the climate; you need to consider data from thousands of years


No. That's not what detection and attribution of climate changes is primarily based on. See here. The existence of natural variability on millennial timescales is irrelevant to the question of whether that variability is acting now, which can be verified by observations now.
 
2012-12-11 05:01:25 PM  
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com 

Imma just leave this here
 
2012-12-11 05:01:33 PM  

SevenizGud: cameroncrazy1984: So, 8,000+ stations for 10 years proves that the globe hasn't been warming for the past 100-150?

Another tard who can't distinguish between "never warmed" and "currently warming".


Have you seen a graph of the past 100 years? There are several ten-year troughs in that graph

Look:

berkeleyearth.org 

That's a graph of four different global temperature measurements since 1800.

What was your argument again? Not currently warming? Care to adjust your conclusion now?
 
2012-12-11 05:02:09 PM  

turnerdude69: cameroncrazy1984: turnerdude69: The Earth has been warming up long before people had anything to do with it...

[citation needed]

Because 99% of scientists disagree with this idea. And have proof to back it up. What do you have?

Geology?? There have been several ice ages and we are lucky enough to be in between the cycle...Pretty sure all scientist would agree with that...


That chart would appear to prove you wrong. Geology has nothing to do with climate, by the way.
 
2012-12-11 05:02:59 PM  

maxheck: SevenizGud:

buck1138: One more time cause you clearly have a case of the stupids.

Another tard who can't distinguish the following from each other:

A. The earth NEVER warmed.

B. The earth is not PRESENTLY warming.

Ok. Is the Earth warming? We'll wait for your answer before asking the next question.


Are you asking about this exact moment? Is this like Zeno's paradox?
 
2012-12-11 05:03:55 PM  
Climate change happens naturally. No one is arguing that. People argue as to whether it is man made. The earth and heated and cooled many times. They dont teach that any more in school. Weird.
 
2012-12-11 05:04:10 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: My neocon friend, who, at times, I barely resist slapping in the back of the head, is convinced that scientists are making up global warming so they can get their sweet, sweet hands on some of that grant money. He apparently believes that grant money comes in massive blocks and that a scientist uses it not for research, but to buy himself nice things. He told me once that he wanted to be a scientist so he could use the grant money to buy himself a bigger house.


If academic scientists don't get outside funding, they eventually lose their jobs. No, they're not swimming in money (well, some are through patents) but they get nothing, good day sir, if their funding dries up. Oh, and science funding and publishing can be quite political. Just sayin'.
 
2012-12-11 05:04:33 PM  

jjdaugh: People argue as to whether it is man made


Scientists don't argue whether it is man-made.
 
2012-12-11 05:04:54 PM  

nigeman:

I'll tell you why you're an idiot



You must be new here. That's not even trolling.
 
2012-12-11 05:05:35 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: turnerdude69: cameroncrazy1984: turnerdude69: The Earth has been warming up long before people had anything to do with it...

[citation needed]

Because 99% of scientists disagree with this idea. And have proof to back it up. What do you have?

Geology?? There have been several ice ages and we are lucky enough to be in between the cycle...Pretty sure all scientist would agree with that...

That chart would appear to prove you wrong. Geology has nothing to do with climate, by the way.


Geology might not have anything to do with the current climate but it is a window into the past....And there is pretty clear evidence that the Earth has went through many Ice ages and tropical periods..all without the help of man...
 
2012-12-11 05:05:53 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: There are several ten-year troughs in that graph


Yeah, just imagine how much it would have warmed in the last 10 years if it had, you know, actually warmed.
 
2012-12-11 05:06:15 PM  
I'm hedging my bets on 12/21 with lotto tickets and climate change options.
 
2012-12-11 05:06:25 PM  

Nightsweat: zedster: Nightsweat: The oldest remnants of civilization are about 6000 11000 years old

FTFY

I wasn't really thinking neolithic societies, more Egypt/Babylon/Sumeria, but OK. still pretty recent on the 800,000 year scale.


I lived in Haifa, which is the site of the oldest known settlement . I believe Jericho is the oldest continually inhabited city at about 9000 years. Doesn't change your point, I was just being a hard ass :-P
 
2012-12-11 05:06:49 PM  

iheartscotch: Can we all just admit that graphs going back one hundred years are just as intellectually dishonest as charts going back ten years?

/ to draw meaningful conclusions on the climate; you need to consider data from thousands of years



How does paleoclimatological data have any bearing on the effects of rapidly increasing CO2 since the Industrial Revolution, unless you can identify similar episodes of CO2 increase for comparison to modern conditions?
 
2012-12-11 05:06:50 PM  
buck1138:

maxheck: SevenizGud:

buck1138: One more time cause you clearly have a case of the stupids.

Another tard who can't distinguish the following from each other:

A. The earth NEVER warmed.

B. The earth is not PRESENTLY warming.

Ok. Is the Earth warming? We'll wait for your answer before asking the next question.

Are you asking about this exact moment? Is this like Zeno's paradox?


No, goodness no. Was asking more about trends. There's been one going on for some 150+ years by every metric. "warming" wouldn't make any sense at an exact moment.
 
2012-12-11 05:07:14 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Geology has nothing to do with climate, by the way.


... Really?
 
2012-12-11 05:08:02 PM  

meanmutton: Here's another topic about which there is no scientific controversy but plenty of self-declared pro-science thinkers deny the science to further their own personal agenda:

In the long-term, diet and exercise alone will not bring about significant, sustained weight loss in the majority of people. You can easily find tons of qualified, long-term, peer-review studies confirming this. You can not find any qualified, long-term peer-reviewed study showing it to be false. Yet lots of people run around spouting off the idea that you can lose lots of weight and keep it off in the long term through diet and exercise as though that is fact.

Oh, and in case you're wondering: Here's the science

Here's the short of it:

In conclusion, this meta-analysis of 29 reports of long-term weight-loss maintenance indicated that weight-loss maintenance 4 or 5 y after a structured weight-loss program averages 3.0 kg or 23% of initial weight loss, representing a sustained reduction in body weight of 3.2%. Individuals who participated in a VLED program or lost ≥20 kg had a weight-loss maintenance at 4 or 5 y of 7 kg or 29% of initial weight loss, representing a sustained reduction in body weight of 6.6%. Although success in weight-loss maintenance has improved over the past decade, much more research is required to enable most individuals to sustain the lifestyle changes in physical activity and food choices necessary for successful weight maintenance.


The short of it seems to be that you misread the study because they directly say that exercise is strongly correlated with KEEPING weight off. The people regaining weight are those that revert to their post-weight-loss lifestyle. From the same study:


Our study confirmed the important role of exercise in weight-loss maintenance. Although persuasive prospective clinical trials have not been done to evaluate the long-term benefits of regular exercise for weight-loss maintenance, the 6 studies analyzed in this report and other extensive evidence (16,54-,56) emphasize the importance of exercise in long-term weight maintenance.


(You know, ignoring that the last SENTENCE of the paragraph you posted directly refutes what you said.)
 
2012-12-11 05:08:14 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Journey with me, subby, back to the early 1600s. You remember studying the 1600s, right? It was a great time of science and learning, but it it was also a great time of scientific misunderstanding. The best of times and the worst of times, if you want to cite a book that's about to be a very, very big Christmas movie. If you're into that sort of gay musical thing, I mean. I'm certainly not, but whatever floats your boat.

But anyway, I distract myself. My point is that, back in the 1600s, everybody -- and I do mean everybody, every peasant and every scientist and every priest, every-freakin'-body--believed in something called Heliocentrism. Which basically was the belief that everything rotated around the sun. No, wait, that's the way it really is. It's the belief that everything rotates around the earth.

No, wait, I was right the first time. Heliocentrism is the belief that everything rotates around the sun, but it's not what everybody believed. Everybody believed that second thing I wrote, about stuff orbiting earth. I don't know what they called it. Earth-centrism maybe. Or Terra-centrism, scientists like using the word "Terra" instead of "Earth" because it's Latin and sounds fancier. But, so, everybody believed in Terra-centrism, and then along comes this guy named Galileo, had the gumption, the guts, the stones to stand up to the world and say NO. The universe is HELIOCENTRIC. Everything orbits the SUN, not the other way around!

Well, as you might imagine, people were pissed off. Nobody likes their entire universe being questioned. Galileo (his friends called him Leo) was imprisoned in his own house, which doesn't sound to bad until you realize they didn't have electricity back then. No TV, no radio, no internet. Imagine that. He was imprisoned for years. But he stuck to his guns. And, eventually, everybody realized that he was right, after all. The sun IS at the center of the universe.

So think about it. If you were to take your fancy little pie chart and p ...


This may set the Fark record for most factual errors in one post. Reminds me of Bluto's Pearl Harbor speech.
 
2012-12-11 05:08:20 PM  
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-c arbon-dioxide-record-breaking/
The link that clickypops the above article. Its full of CHARTS AND DIAGRAMS!
Like this one:
i90.photobucket.com 

Look at the above chart and ask yourself "what is normal for the earth?"
It would appear that "hotter than now" and "more CO2 than now" are normal... but the heat doesn't seem to reflect the CO2 in the same way that the fourteen thousand copies of other peer reviewed papers would have you believe... its almost as if carbon dioxide does NOTHING to increase the atmospheric heat.
 
2012-12-11 05:08:24 PM  

turnerdude69: cameroncrazy1984: turnerdude69: cameroncrazy1984: turnerdude69: The Earth has been warming up long before people had anything to do with it...

[citation needed]

Because 99% of scientists disagree with this idea. And have proof to back it up. What do you have?

Geology?? There have been several ice ages and we are lucky enough to be in between the cycle...Pretty sure all scientist would agree with that...

That chart would appear to prove you wrong. Geology has nothing to do with climate, by the way.

Geology might not have anything to do with the current climate but it is a window into the past....And there is pretty clear evidence that the Earth has went through many Ice ages and tropical periods..all without the help of man...


Over a long period of time. That does not mean that man cannot also cause global warming. That's like saying that since walking exists, man cannot invent other modes of transportation, because there is only one way to get around .
 
2012-12-11 05:08:53 PM  

turnerdude69: And there is pretty clear evidence that the Earth has went through many Ice ages and tropical periods..all without the help of man...


This is both true and utterly irrelevant to the question of what is causing the current warming. See here.

I find it completely bizarre how many people there are in this thread who wander in and announce "But the climate has changed before!" Yes, scientists know this. Reflect on why they still believe that humans are causing the current warming.
 
2012-12-11 05:09:34 PM  
It doesn't matter. The damage is done. While i'd like nothing better than for humanity to get off the fossil fuel addiction it's on now, we can't reverse the changes we've made to this planet, short of popping a dozen volcanoes to reflect a portion of the sunlight to simulate a nuclear winter. HUGE Methane deposits in the russian/siberian northern permafrost is already starting to escape in large quantities, but it is nothing compared to the actual deposits still trapped under there, which will be released faster as the methane being released speeds up the whole process.

Nothing we do to reverse the effects will actually reverse the effects. Thank the anti-Climate change lobbyists and bullshait artists.

Humans will probably survive (like herpes), but in a completely different planet.

/back to drinking
//it's already hot as hell where i live, another 10 celcius increase will probably not matter much in the long run for me
 
2012-12-11 05:09:48 PM  
turnerdude69:

Geology might not have anything to do with the current climate but it is a window into the past....And there is pretty clear evidence that the Earth has went through many Ice ages and tropical periods..all without the help of man...

And there were forest fires millions of years before humans showed up.

This does not imply that we can't cause forest fires. 

That is a stupid line of logic, and you should feel ashamed! :)
 
2012-12-11 05:10:10 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SevenizGud: cameroncrazy1984: So, 8,000+ stations for 10 years proves that the globe hasn't been warming for the past 100-150?

Another tard who can't distinguish between "never warmed" and "currently warming".

Have you seen a graph of the past 100 years? There are several ten-year troughs in that graph

Look:

[berkeleyearth.org image 525x408] 

That's a graph of four different global temperature measurements since 1800.

What was your argument again? Not currently warming? Care to adjust your conclusion now?


I have no dog in this fight, but isn't that a land temperature graph? And don't we have a lot of paved land nowadays that we didn't in 1800? Paved land that's a lot hotter than it would be if it were shaded grass?
 
2012-12-11 05:10:27 PM  
Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics.
My friends and I have had 100 discussions. One of those discussions was about how it's wrong to kill puppies for sexual pleasure. Thus according to the chart above, only one in ten discussions reject puppy killing for sexual pleasure. Therefore only 1% of our discussions have been against puppy killing for sexual pleasure.

"An article about climate change" does not equal "An article in support of global warming."

I'm not saying global warming is not a thing, but I won't take it seriously so long as those defending it have to try to 'trick' me into their way of thinking instead of presenting serious evidence.
 
2012-12-11 05:10:37 PM  

SevenizGud: cameroncrazy1984: So, 8,000+ stations for 10 years proves that the globe hasn't been warming for the past 100-150?

Another tard who can't distinguish between "never warmed" and "currently warming".


You take 10 years out of a system that has been proven to not show clear trends for periods less than 30 years and you call other people 'tards'??

This has literally been pointed out to you over a hundred times but you are too stupid to understand ... your sample size is too small to be relevant. It causes your signal to noise ratio to be too low to get a clear trend.

The following animation explains the difference between how you see data and how intelligent people see data:
www.skepticalscience.com
 
2012-12-11 05:10:39 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.


No, this is not true. In the 60s and 70s, some scientific papers at the time said the earth was cooling, and some said it was warming. A majority of the papers, even back then, predicted warming. A few of those even predicted it based on a rise in greenhouse gasses.

Time magazine published an article about global cooling. They took one scientist's findings and reported them as if they were scientific fact. The reality is, there was no consensus back then on cooling or warming, but one was starting to form based on what was being published.
 
2012-12-11 05:10:41 PM  

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?
 
2012-12-11 05:11:21 PM  

Ambitwistor: turnerdude69: And there is pretty clear evidence that the Earth has went through many Ice ages and tropical periods..all without the help of man...

This is both true and utterly irrelevant to the question of what is causing the current warming. See here.

I find it completely bizarre how many people there are in this thread who wander in and announce "But the climate has changed before!" Yes, scientists know this. Reflect on why they still believe that humans are causing the current warming.


So, it's humans, instead of another cause. So what?
 
2012-12-11 05:11:50 PM  

tuckeg: Pocket Ninja: Journey with me, subby, back to the early 1600s.

This may set the Fark record for most factual errors in one post. Reminds me of Bluto's Pearl Harbor speech.


That post may set a record for the deepest hook set ever.

Pocket Ninja is gonna need to upgrade to 100lb test.
 
2012-12-11 05:11:59 PM  

SevenizGud: cameroncrazy1984: There are several ten-year troughs in that graph

Yeah, just imagine how much it would have warmed in the last 10 years if it had, you know, actually warmed.

 


www.skepticalscience.com
 
2012-12-11 05:12:23 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: cameroncrazy1984: SevenizGud: cameroncrazy1984: So, 8,000+ stations for 10 years proves that the globe hasn't been warming for the past 100-150?

Another tard who can't distinguish between "never warmed" and "currently warming".

Have you seen a graph of the past 100 years? There are several ten-year troughs in that graph

Look:

[berkeleyearth.org image 525x408] 

That's a graph of four different global temperature measurements since 1800.

What was your argument again? Not currently warming? Care to adjust your conclusion now?

I have no dog in this fight, but isn't that a land temperature graph? And don't we have a lot of paved land nowadays that we didn't in 1800? Paved land that's a lot hotter than it would be if it were shaded grass?


So your theory is that scientists are placing instruments on land and then having it paved over and measured?

Good luck with that.
 
2012-12-11 05:12:30 PM  
I would humbly like to point you fellow farkfaces in the direction of this documentary - a thing of beauty and horror:


Chasing Ice 

In which you get to see a block of ice the size of lower manhattan (and three times as high) calve from a glacier and set about large boat-seeking, among other things.
 
2012-12-11 05:12:30 PM  

jigger: whizbangthedirtfarmer: My neocon friend, who, at times, I barely resist slapping in the back of the head, is convinced that scientists are making up global warming so they can get their sweet, sweet hands on some of that grant money. He apparently believes that grant money comes in massive blocks and that a scientist uses it not for research, but to buy himself nice things. He told me once that he wanted to be a scientist so he could use the grant money to buy himself a bigger house.

If academic scientists don't get outside funding, they eventually lose their jobs. No, they're not swimming in money (well, some are through patents) but they get nothing, good day sir, if their funding dries up. Oh, and science funding and publishing can be quite political. Just sayin'.


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?
 
2012-12-11 05:12:35 PM  
The earth is warming, but we were on our way to another ice age anyway, so it's all good. That is, we're doing it a bit fast, but then - there's plenty of land in the northern hemisphere that can be used to live on with all of us. I really don't see the problem. All the carbon we're digging up used to be in the top layer anyway. And the earth was full of life then, too.
 
2012-12-11 05:12:58 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.


It's so freakin' weird how science takes new information and evidence into account when making predictions.
 
2012-12-11 05:13:09 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Ambitwistor: turnerdude69: And there is pretty clear evidence that the Earth has went through many Ice ages and tropical periods..all without the help of man...

This is both true and utterly irrelevant to the question of what is causing the current warming. See here.

I find it completely bizarre how many people there are in this thread who wander in and announce "But the climate has changed before!" Yes, scientists know this. Reflect on why they still believe that humans are causing the current warming.

So, it's humans, instead of another cause. So what?


If we caused it, we can fix it.

But no, that would be too hard, wouldn't it!
 
2012-12-11 05:13:09 PM  
SevenizGud: cameroncrazy1984: There are several ten-year troughs in that graph

Yeah, just imagine how much it would have warmed in the last 10 years if it had, you know, actually warmed.



----------------------

It's like derp inside of herp, wrapped in herpaderpa.

/ignored
 
2012-12-11 05:14:12 PM  

BigBurrito: "Actually, if your science is sound and you have a pertinent test, you would most likely receive funding.

Most basic science research is funded by the NSF. The NSF uses peer reviews to determine allocation of funding. You send a grant request in, then that request is submitted with other grant requests to anonymous scientists in your discipline. Those anonymous scientists determine which grants are more deserving of the money."



The problem with this system is that monopolies are not limited to commerce. It may surprise you, but people (even scientists!) whose reputations depend on broad acceptance and trust of their research are much more motivated to approve funding for studies that support their conclusions than for research that is in any way likely to discredit their work.

The more of a "consensus" you have, the more of these anonymous scientists belong to it -- and the more likely that the sample of those scientists that sees a grant request for a project that threatens this "consensus" will have a personal interest in rejecting funding for such a grant. The result is a vicious circle with no regulation mechanism.

Whether you personally believe the consensus is valid or not, you have to acknowledge that the peer review framework that governs scientific publication today does NOT adequately protect against the suppression of countervailing but valid research.


BigBurrito: "Recommendations are made and eventually the funds are rewarded. Usually to the most deserving project."


Wow. That's not at all naive.
 
2012-12-11 05:15:22 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I have no dog in this fight, but isn't that a land temperature graph?


Yes; the ocean and global temperature graphs look similar (though the trend values are different).

And don't we have a lot of paved land nowadays that we didn't in 1800? Paved land that's a lot hotter than it would be if it were shaded grass?

The fraction of the Earth's surface that is paved is pretty negligible, and a simple energy balance calculation on the albedo change due to paving indicates that its climatic effects are pretty negligible. People have done this for general land use changes (buildings, farm land, etc.), and it just doesn't add up to enough to cause warming of the observed magnitude.

A separate issue is whether paving could locally bias some of the temperature readings (i.e., make it look hotter than the planet really is due to over-sampling urban areas). This is called the urban heat island effect, and is measured and corrected for in these records. But even if you toss out the urban stations altogether, you get fairly similar results.
 
2012-12-11 05:15:36 PM  

spmkk: The more of a "consensus" you have, the more of these anonymous scientists belong to it -


You realize that's a consensus of studies, not scientists, right?
 
2012-12-11 05:15:48 PM  

cameroncrazy1984:

I have no dog in this fight, but isn't that a land temperature graph? And don't we have a lot of paved land nowadays that we didn't in 1800? Paved land that's a lot hotter than it would be if it were shaded grass?

So your theory is that scientists are placing instruments on land and then having it paved over and measured?

Good luck with that.


I... don't have a theory? I was just asking if the increase in land temperatures could be attributed to more land being covered in materials that are more susceptible to storing heat, such as pavement, concrete, etc...

I have no idea how land temperature data is collecting, which is why I was asking. You're the one posting charts, so I figured you'd be able to provide a bit of context into what the charts represent.
 
2012-12-11 05:15:54 PM  
I guess it is safe to say that the thread has proven the headline wrong.
 
2012-12-11 05:16:26 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Ambitwistor: turnerdude69: And there is pretty clear evidence that the Earth has went through many Ice ages and tropical periods..all without the help of man...

This is both true and utterly irrelevant to the question of what is causing the current warming. See here.

I find it completely bizarre how many people there are in this thread who wander in and announce "But the climate has changed before!" Yes, scientists know this. Reflect on why they still believe that humans are causing the current warming.

So, it's humans, instead of another cause. So what?


So, the observation that ice ages have occurred in the past is kind of irrelevant to this thread, which is about the current climate change.
 
2012-12-11 05:16:27 PM  

Ambitwistor: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I have no dog in this fight, but isn't that a land temperature graph?

Yes; the ocean and global temperature graphs look similar (though the trend values are different).

And don't we have a lot of paved land nowadays that we didn't in 1800? Paved land that's a lot hotter than it would be if it were shaded grass?

The fraction of the Earth's surface that is paved is pretty negligible, and a simple energy balance calculation on the albedo change due to paving indicates that its climatic effects are pretty negligible. People have done this for general land use changes (buildings, farm land, etc.), and it just doesn't add up to enough to cause warming of the observed magnitude.

A separate issue is whether paving could locally bias some of the temperature readings (i.e., make it look hotter than the planet really is due to over-sampling urban areas). This is called the urban heat island effect, and is measured and corrected for in these records. But even if you toss out the urban stations altogether, you get fairly similar results.


Ah, thanks for the explanation, that's helpful.
 
2012-12-11 05:16:51 PM  

maxheck: buck1138:

maxheck: SevenizGud:

buck1138: One more time cause you clearly have a case of the stupids.

Another tard who can't distinguish the following from each other:

A. The earth NEVER warmed.

B. The earth is not PRESENTLY warming.

Ok. Is the Earth warming? We'll wait for your answer before asking the next question.

Are you asking about this exact moment? Is this like Zeno's paradox?

No, goodness no. Was asking more about trends. There's been one going on for some 150+ years by every metric. "warming" wouldn't make any sense at an exact moment.


I'll bite I guess... Yes the earth is warming given a long enough time line?

/The death rate goes to 0
 
2012-12-11 05:17:06 PM  
Most don't deny that the climate is getting warmer. The issue is what the cause is. The debate is whether CO2 causes global warming, or whether CO2 increase in the atmosphere FOLLOWS global warming. Water stores CO2. The solubility of CO2 in water increases as temperature decreases. So as the oceans warm, they release CO2.

Natural cycles in the earth's orbit around the sun, and natural cycles in sun radiation output are much more plausible to many than a man-made greenhouse effect.

Regardless, the Earth is in a much, much cooler state than it has been in the past. And a much, much warmer state as well. I'd rather a temperature increase across the globe than a decrease. Subtropical regions are much nicer to live in than say, arctic ice age conditions...

Charles.
 
2012-12-11 05:17:55 PM  
For all the Deniers who are now saying "We do not deny that GW is happening we only deny that it is man-made" ... please look at all the posts by Sevenizgud.

He is one of yours ... he is an idiot (redundant??) ... and he is denying that we are warming!!!!

So please stop accusing us of posting strawman arguments ... even if it does not apply to you it does apply to some of your anti-science brethren.

"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
 
2012-12-11 05:18:43 PM  
spmkk:

The more of a "consensus" you have, the more of these anonymous scientists belong to it -- and the more likely that the sample of those scientists that sees a grant request for a project that threatens this "consensus" will have a personal interest in rejecting funding for such a grant. The result is a vicious circle with no regulation mechanism.

----------

The first time I heard this ridiculous argument (that scientists make stuff up to get money) I heard it from a morbidly obese drug addict on the radio.
 
2012-12-11 05:19:51 PM  

Ambitwistor:
So, the observation that ice ages have occurred in the past is kind of irrelevant to this thread, which is about the current climate change.



Fair enough. Is the goal just to convince people that humans are the cause of the current climate change? And then once every one is convinced, we can go back to arguing about other stuff? Or do people think that the warming trend is going to continue until the Earth is an uninhabitable wasteland or something?
 
2012-12-11 05:20:31 PM  
"Now I know some people will just say that this is due to mainstream scientists suppressing controversy and all that, but let me be succinct: That's bull."

Well, glad they used the same level of scientific rigor in disputing that as they did in "proving" global warming.
 
2012-12-11 05:20:48 PM  

Pocket Ninja: The best of times and the worst of times, if you want to cite a book that's about to be a very, very big Christmas movie.


Not sure if troll or just...oh, hi, Pocket Ninja.
 
2012-12-11 05:21:05 PM  

Chigau: Damnhippyfreak: Chigau: I don't doubt that the climate is changing, i simply doubt that we fully........ if anything they are good ideas for their own sake. It just means, in my mind, that we aren't able to truly say there is a direct correlation between some things.

You're bringing up an important point, but be aware that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on simple correlation, but instead understanding of the underlying mechanisms and processes.

Fair enough, and as I attempted to state before most environmental measures are a good idea for their own sake. From what i have observed, as i did spend some time working in the planetary science labs in college (it was just a job, not really my thing in life) much of the time the researchers were still making a guess, a reasonably logical guess, about what some of those mechanism might be or how they work.

I'm all for trying to make a better world, i just have trouble believing that anyone in current day science truly knows what is normal for a life bearing planet considering our limited frame of reference.


... or did i miss some major discovery of other life in space?



What you're saying is a legitimate concern. Let be broaden what I was trying to get across. The way that we make any inferences past our limited frame of reference, whether the subject is planetary science, climate, or even evolution is understanding of the underlying mechanisms and processes. Correlation, as you rightfully note, can only take you so far.
 
2012-12-11 05:21:24 PM  
Back the f*ck up a minute. I got this to show you:

i46.tinypic.com

In your faces, biatches.
 
2012-12-11 05:21:29 PM  
If "climate change" prompts car manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars, and greater use of non-fossil fuel sources of power, then great. 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.

An interesting question I've never seen answered: if every single human being on the planet stopped burning fossil fuels, wood, coal, etc. tomorrow, what impact would this have to climate change? In other words, should we even bother trying? The earth has been around a lot longer than humans, and will be around a lot longer after we're gone too.
 
2012-12-11 05:21:51 PM  

Bullseyed: "Now I know some people will just say that this is due to mainstream scientists suppressing controversy and all that, but let me be succinct: That's bull."

Well, glad they used the same level of scientific rigor in disputing that as they did in "proving" global warming.


Actually, the rigor is there. You just choose to believe it isn't.
 
2012-12-11 05:21:53 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.


I flipped a coin and it came up heads 332 times in a row. You're a fool for saying the next one might be tails!
 
2012-12-11 05:23:06 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-11 05:23:10 PM  

GoldDude: If "climate change" prompts car manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars, and greater use of non-fossil fuel sources of power, then great. 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.

An interesting question I've never seen answered: if every single human being on the planet stopped burning fossil fuels, wood, coal, etc. tomorrow, what impact would this have to climate change? In other words, should we even bother trying? The earth has been around a lot longer than humans, and will be around a lot longer after we're gone too.


As far as I can tell, "climate change" is used mainly as a reason to call other people names on the internet.
 
2012-12-11 05:23:19 PM  

spmkk: The more of a "consensus" you have, the more of these anonymous scientists belong to it -- and the more likely that the sample of those scientists that sees a grant request for a project that threatens this "consensus" will have a personal interest in rejecting funding for such a grant.


This has little to do with how grants are actually written. Nobody writes "I'm going to disprove global warming!" in their proposals. Likewise, nobody writes "I'm going to prove global warming!". In fact, anybody who wrote either of those things should get their proposals rejected, because it's unscientific to assume your conclusion.

Instead, people write "I intend to quantify the fractional contribution of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to changes in global temperature, and here's my new and improved method for doing so". That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, and well within the scope of an RFP (e.g., on climate variability). Regardless of whether you think the PDO is a major or minor contributor, it's an advance on science to better study the modes of climate variability (which is why there are always calls for this kind of work), and if you have a new method for doing it, that's exactly what the program officer is looking for.
 
2012-12-11 05:23:40 PM  

Diogenes: doyner: Interesting how the vast majority of people that reject the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change are willing to believe claims made in texts that are mellinia old without any skepticism....

Faith in God has sustained us much longer than science has.


God didn't exist until after all of the other gods and deities were created. Humans also did perfectly fine before they began creating gods to explain everything from why the sun moves across the sky to why the frogs croak at night.
 
2012-12-11 05:23:45 PM  

tobcc:
Dont get me wrong, I think we as humans have changed the climate, but.. we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

//dont worry, I think we need to get off fosell fuels, and have clean air too
/// am a hippy (not really a dirty one though)


The thing is, humans only evolved in the last 500,000 years or so. So that's as far back as we need to go to be relevant to our survival. I'm sure we could claim "It was hotter when the earth was a ball of molten magma, so we don't need to worry!", but that would be stupid.
 
2012-12-11 05:24:07 PM  

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


Glad to see you have zero interest in the longevity of the human race. The earth is more important, amirite? God forbid we should try to elongate our stay on this planet.
 
2012-12-11 05:24:36 PM  

rotsky: I'll always have, in the back of my mind, the fact that some scientists faked their data a couple years ago.

I'm not an idiot, it just made me skeptical.


No they didn't. That whole accusation was false. Not one bit of truth. Please stop believing that crap.
 
2012-12-11 05:24:42 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: spmkk:

The more of a "consensus" you have, the more of these anonymous scientists belong to it -- and the more likely that the sample of those scientists that sees a grant request for a project that threatens this "consensus" will have a personal interest in rejecting funding for such a grant. The result is a vicious circle with no regulation mechanism.

----------

The first time I heard this ridiculous argument (that scientists make stuff up to get money) I heard it from a morbidly obese drug addict on the radio.


You have no idea how good that sweat, sweat, higgs boson is. Once you get some you just can't help yourself. You'll say anything. You'll build acres of magnets and do god knows how much math just for one more hit. Of course after a few hits you realize this wasn't what you thought it was. You haven't showered for days and you have sores on your arms from the nervous scratching. You've had god knows who;s dick in your mouth just for acces to some new data. Pretty soon you hit rock bottom, just like the rest and you go to rehab. But from then on they never really let you back in the lab. Your just an adict that couldn't handle your junk. A joke, a punchline. After that you go into teaching.
 
2012-12-11 05:24:43 PM  

SevenizGud: Yeah, just imagine how much it would have warmed in the last 10 years if it had, you know, actually warmed.


So, aside from demonstrating that you don't understand that trends are rarely expressed by straight lines on a graph, do you have an actual point? Other than "This data indicates no warming for this very short period", do you have any conclusion or hypothesis to draw from it? Or are you simply going to continue to repeat your painfully meaningless statement?
 
2012-12-11 05:24:53 PM  

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!


99.8% of all peer reviewed articles on how flat the Earth was said the Earth was definitely flat.


Who writes an article on disproving a theory? If you have a theory you have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt it is true. Until then, no one has to disprove anything.

0 Articles were written about how the sky is not orange! Therefore it must be orange!
 
2012-12-11 05:25:47 PM  
Got it. When there is a consesus on an issue, the majority has to be right. Which is why the earth is a flat object, with a sun that revolves around it.
 
2012-12-11 05:26:10 PM  

doyner: tobcc: Dont get me wrong, I think we as humans have changed the climate, but.. we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

I have a clock that is 80 years old, but I don't need to observe it for a decade to determine its periodicity and any variations thereof.


Lots of theater, English and history majors in here.
 
2012-12-11 05:26:53 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: [whyfiles.org image 510x515]


Oh hey, look, the hockey stick graph is back. The one disproven a decade ago.
 
2012-12-11 05:27:31 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: jigger: cameroncrazy1984: Except for that study that was funded by the Koch brothers to try to disprove global warming

GAT_00: The Koch Brothers paid for a study to prove that global warming wasn't real.

citation needed on the bolded part

The guy who ran the study was a skeptic. Until he did the study


1. No we wasn't, at least not wrt to global warming. He had problems with the Hockey Stick Graph and the scientific malpractice behind "hide the decline" and still does, but he never doubted recent global warming.
2. Do you have a citation that shows that the Koch brothers funded this research in an effort to disprove global warming?
 
2012-12-11 05:27:54 PM  

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

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


How long does the human race have if nothing is done to change climate change?
 
2012-12-11 05:28:08 PM  

zedster: tobcc: we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

WRONG!! Ice core samples, we have data going back 800,000 years


Ice core samples obviously only show the cold years. All the warm years melted.
 
2012-12-11 05:28:09 PM  

Vodka Zombie: I don't know how much humans are responsible for climate change, and I don't know if that really even matters anyway. The fact is, the climate is changing, and I suppose we can sit around and bicker about it, or, more productively, we can maybe try to prepare ourselves for it.


If you can get that published and on the Web of Science with the "global warming" keyword, then you too can join the majority of papers which do not disprove global warming.

This study counted everything with "global warming" as a keyword, whether it contained something relevant to the science or not. The disproven frogs-killed-by-global-warming articles probably got counted too. Even if those articles weren't disproven, they were biology articles which are not relevant to climate science.
 
2012-12-11 05:28:25 PM  

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


You realize that the flat-earth concept was not scientific, right?
 
2012-12-11 05:28:31 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: God forbid we should try to elongate our stay on this planet.


You can't and you won't. So stfu already. Be sure to cash in your CO2 stock before it crashes. You need cabbage to buy kool-aid you know.
 
2012-12-11 05:29:15 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: [whyfiles.org image 510x515]


I beleive in climate change, but posting a chart that makes it seem like the rise in CO2 levels we are having now is unprecedented and entirely the result of human acitivity is deceptive. You do more harm than good, because anyone who does a tiny bit of research sees your chart is purposefully bogus, and then they feel like they have the right to dismiss whole reams of evidence, because they found a bad apple.
 
2012-12-11 05:29:16 PM  

sweetmelissa31: rotsky: I'm not an idiot, it just made me skeptical.

Are you skeptical about whether vaccines really don't cause autism too? I mean, autism rates have gone up, and vaccination rates have gone up. There are some scientists who think that vaccines cause autism. I'm just asking questions.


Autism must cause global warming research papers. In all the years that autism has gone up, so have the number of pro-global warming people.
 
2012-12-11 05:30:20 PM  

ChopperCharles: Most don't deny that the climate is getting warmer. The issue is what the cause is.


That's the issue on Fark. It's already resolved in the scientific community.

The debate is whether CO2 causes global warming, or whether CO2 increase in the atmosphere FOLLOWS global warming.

No, that's a fake debate invented by skeptics. CO2 has followed global warming in the glacial cycles, as predicted; those same glacial cycles require this CO2-induced greenhouse feedback to explain the amplitude of the cycles. The same greenhouse effect that is now operating. At the present time, CO2 is causing global warming and overriding the glacial cycle.

Water stores CO2. The solubility of CO2 in water increases as temperature decreases. So as the oceans warm, they release CO2.

This is true and relevant to the glacial cycles. But this ocean solubility pump is too small to fully explain either the CO2 changes in the glacial cycles, or the current CO2 changes. And there are many other independent lines of evidence (about six, last I counted) conclusively linking the present CO2 increase to humans.

Natural cycles in the earth's orbit around the sun, and natural cycles in sun radiation output are much more plausible to many than a man-made greenhouse effect.

Only if you're totally ignorant, as you appear to be. Orbital cycles are of the wrong phase, magnitude, and even sign to explain the current warming. And solar output observably has not had a significant increase over the period of modern warming. (It had some contribution to the warming in the early 20th century.)

Regardless, the Earth is in a much, much cooler state than it has been in the past. And a much, much warmer state as well. I'd rather a temperature increase across the globe than a decrease. Subtropical regions are much nicer to live in than say, arctic ice age conditions...

If the next ice age were due in a century, that might be relevant, but it's not. The present choice isn't between global warming or an ice age. Long term, it might be, but if you were honestly concerned about that, you'd be advocating for using up a fraction of our fossil fuels slowly to stabilize temperatures when they're needed, rather than using them all up now and overshooting, when they're not.


Charles.
 
2012-12-11 05:30:33 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: prjindigo: its almost as if carbon dioxide does NOTHING to increase the atmospheric heat.

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


The greenhouse effect does not work along the same principle as an actual greenhouse. Just sayin'.
 
2012-12-11 05:30:41 PM  
I dunno - I think I'll wait until the green-text guru tells me why more than 99.8% of the articles are wrong and less than 0.2% are reliable.
 
2012-12-11 05:32:11 PM  

jigger: cameroncrazy1984: prjindigo: its almost as if carbon dioxide does NOTHING to increase the atmospheric heat.

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

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


Based on his posts in this thread, I get the feeling that that dude isn't all that bright.
 
2012-12-11 05:32:19 PM  

Graffito: Xexi: The mass acceptance of a subject does not constitute that belief as factual.

/kudos for the flame thread

Then what does? How do you know what, if anything, is factual?


Appropriating minute amounts of data from an object billions of years old, and basing a hypothesis from that compilation, enables any facade an individual wishes to pursue.
 
2012-12-11 05:32:33 PM  
Bullseyed: zedster: tobcc: we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

WRONG!! Ice core samples, we have data going back 800,000 years

Ice core samples obviously only show the cold years. All the warm years melted.



--------------------------


You aren't serious are you? Really, let me know if you're joking and I will unpink you.
 
2012-12-11 05:32:50 PM  

jigger: cameroncrazy1984: jigger: cameroncrazy1984: Except for that study that was funded by the Koch brothers to try to disprove global warming

GAT_00: The Koch Brothers paid for a study to prove that global warming wasn't real.

citation needed on the bolded part

The guy who ran the study was a skeptic. Until he did the study

1. No we wasn't, at least not wrt to global warming. He had problems with the Hockey Stick Graph and the scientific malpractice behind "hide the decline" and still does, but he never doubted recent global warming.
2. Do you have a citation that shows that the Koch brothers funded this research in an effort to disprove global warming?


Richard Muller did the study, and wrote an NYT Op-Ed titled "The Conversion of a Climate-Change skeptic

The Koch brothers funneled $1 million to the Cato Institute, an institute that denies the existence of climate change

Any other questions or are we good now?
 
2012-12-11 05:33:03 PM  
They will still be idiots.
 
2012-12-11 05:33:10 PM  

ChopperCharles: Most don't deny that the climate is getting warmer. The issue is what the cause is. The debate is whether CO2 causes global warming, or whether CO2 increase in the atmosphere FOLLOWS global warming. Water stores CO2. The solubility of CO2 in water increases as temperature decreases. So as the oceans warm, they release CO2.


PLENTY of the trolls around here deny that the climate is getting warmer. They come in here with their little graphs that show 1998-2008 and a line with a very slightly negative slope and say LOOK YOU'RE IDIOTS, before we chase them away with a can of Raid.

CO2 is far and away the best fit of all the possible forcings. According to the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature team (the once-denialist group that became convinced when they did their study):

"The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we've tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect - extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don't prove causality and they shouldn't end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. "

Natural cycles in the earth's orbit around the sun, and natural cycles in sun radiation output are much more plausible to many than a man-made greenhouse effect.

Both are ENTIRELY measurable, and both COMPLETELY fail to explain the observed warming.

For instance, the Berkely Earth Surface Temperature team found that, over the past 250 years, the contribution of the sun to temperature forcing has been "consistent with zero".

Regardless, the Earth is in a much, much cooler state than it has been in the past. And a much, much warmer state as well. I'd rather a temperature increase across the globe than a decrease. Subtropical regions are much nicer to live in than say, arctic ice age conditions...

Just because you like being warm doesn't mean it's what's best to keep the planet habitable by human beings.

Charles

Signing posts? What are you, 60?
 
2012-12-11 05:34:02 PM  

amoral: I beleive in climate change, but posting a chart that makes it seem like the rise in CO2 levels we are having now is unprecedented and entirely the result of human acitivity is deceptive.


The rate of rise of CO2 levels we are having now is unprecedented as far as we know, although the amount of rise is not. (Even so, this amount of rise hasn't been seen for millions of years.) The total increase in CO2, over the period of time depicted in that graph, is indeed almost entirely the result of human activity.
 
2012-12-11 05:34:07 PM  

OregonVet: cameroncrazy1984: God forbid we should try to elongate our stay on this planet.

You can't and you won't. So stfu already. Be sure to cash in your CO2 stock before it crashes. You need cabbage to buy kool-aid you know.


WTF are you on about?
 
2012-12-11 05:34:44 PM  

amoral: because anyone who does a tiny bit of research sees your chart is purposefully bogus,


Then show is the tiniest bit of research.
 
2012-12-11 05:34:51 PM  

fuhfuhfuh: I guess it is safe to say that the thread has proven the headline wrong.



Never underestimate the power of derp.
 
2012-12-11 05:34:59 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Bullseyed: zedster: tobcc: we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

WRONG!! Ice core samples, we have data going back 800,000 years

Ice core samples obviously only show the cold years. All the warm years melted.



--------------------------


You aren't serious are you? Really, let me know if you're joking and I will unpink you.


Oh come on, that's obviously a joke. And quite a funny one. Welcome to Fark?
 
2012-12-11 05:35:02 PM  

Bullseyed: 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.

I flipped a coin and it came up heads 332 times in a row. You're a fool for saying the next one might be tails!


Heh. You might not be making the point you think you are. Keep in mind that the probability of a coin coming out heads 332 times in a row is (if memory serves), 0.5^332. This, of course, should have told you that you can reject the idea that the coin toss is random. Given such overwhelming evidence, indeed one would be "a fool for saying the next one might be tails".

More importantly, the fact that you would still cling to the assumption that particular coin had, even in the face of such overwhelming evidence suggests that you may be putting far too much faith in preconceived ideas instead of evidence.
 
2012-12-11 05:35:06 PM  

Xexi: Appropriating minute amounts of data from an object billions of years old, and basing a hypothesis from that compilation, enables any facade an individual wishes to pursue.


The age of the Earth is irrelevant to this discussion. It's like arguing that we need 4 billion years of data to understand synoptic weather patterns.
 
2012-12-11 05:35:29 PM  

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

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

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

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


I'm not the one that assumed that scientists that measure land temperature don't take variables into account. Just saying.
 
2012-12-11 05:36:16 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: More importantly, the fact that you would still cling to the assumption that particular coin had a chance of coming up tails, even in the face of such overwhelming evidence suggests that you may be putting far too much faith in preconceived ideas instead of evidence.


That makes more sense.
 
2012-12-11 05:37:21 PM  

maxheck: turnerdude69:

Geology might not have anything to do with the current climate but it is a window into the past....And there is pretty clear evidence that the Earth has went through many Ice ages and tropical periods..all without the help of man...

And there were forest fires millions of years before humans showed up.

This does not imply that we can't cause forest fires. 

That is a stupid line of logic, and you should feel ashamed! :)


It's just a fact...I'm not assuming anything like you are....Earth has been warming since the last ice age...FACT ....You assume we can do something to stop it....
 
2012-12-11 05:37:28 PM  
What I'd like to see is how the people who are horrified by what climate scientists say and denigrate their work have to say about how "DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THE CLIMATE WILL KILL THE ECONOMY!"

I'm sure that one would be backed up by reputable science. Economists and all.
 
2012-12-11 05:37:31 PM  

Bullseyed: zedster: tobcc: we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

WRONG!! Ice core samples, we have data going back 800,000 years

Ice core samples obviously only show the cold years. All the warm years melted.


My god, you've got it. You should write a paper on it and submit it to all the journals.
 
2012-12-11 05:38:10 PM  

amoral: Marcus Aurelius: [whyfiles.org image 510x515]

I beleive in climate change, but posting a chart that makes it seem like the rise in CO2 levels we are having now is unprecedented and entirely the result of human acitivity is deceptive. You do more harm than good, because anyone who does a tiny bit of research sees your chart is purposefully bogus, and then they feel like they have the right to dismiss whole reams of evidence, because they found a bad apple.



How is the current rise in CO2 not the result of human activity?

www.climatepedia.org

Can you point out that part of the CO2 increase which is not anthropogenic?
 
2012-12-11 05:39:49 PM  
data.giss.nasa.gov

According to the URL, that graph comes from NASA. Interesting.

Anyway...

What I get from that graph is that temperatures fell sharply from 1940 to 1950. Therefore, I must conclude that the rise of Nazism and/or global warfare can reduce the temperature anomaly significantly. I'd wager that industrialism was pretty high during that time as most of the world was busy building tanks, ships, planes, guns, bombs, testing nukes, etc, all things that put a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I propose we reanimate Hitler (he's not really dead, you know) and pick a fight with Iran, Syria, Lybia, Russia and whoever else might want to fight for a bit. It should only take about 40 years of global war to return to pre 1900 temperatures.
 
2012-12-11 05:40:05 PM  

Kazan: zedster: tobcc: we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

WRONG!! Ice core samples, we have data going back 800,000 years

and the the formation of rocks helps us know about carbon and temperature levels as well. we get back much further than 800k with that.


My google-fu is weak today. I've been looking for margin's of error for the different proxies and cannot find a set number, even a loose discussion.

I did see a figure somewhere in reading up on ice cores, on the wiki, and a LOT of talk of what makes testing difficult, but no forthright actual margins.

I'm curious, because we're talking about tenths of a degree in recent centuries...doesn't help in arguing against skeptics.
 
2012-12-11 05:40:57 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-11 05:41:04 PM  
turnerdude69:

maxheck: turnerdude69:

Geology might not have anything to do with the current climate but it is a window into the past....And there is pretty clear evidence that the Earth has went through many Ice ages and tropical periods..all without the help of man...

And there were forest fires millions of years before humans showed up.

This does not imply that we can't cause forest fires.

That is a stupid line of logic, and you should feel ashamed! :)

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

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

I said nothing at all about stopping it, but you did say something about causes.
 
2012-12-11 05:41:59 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.


I'm as old as you are, and you are a liar.

Either that, or your elementary school science curriculum was developed by barnyard animals.
 
2012-12-11 05:44:50 PM  
Questions for the deniers: 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?
 
2012-12-11 05:46:16 PM  

turnerdude69: Earth has been warming since the last ice age...FACT ....You assume we can do something to stop it....


That's not a fact. We already passed the peak interglacial thousands of years ago, as predicted by the Milankovitch cycles, and have been, on average, gradually cooling into the next glacial period.

www.globalwarmingart.com
 
2012-12-11 05:46:31 PM  
montaraventures.com
 
2012-12-11 05:46:45 PM  
FYI SevenizGud comes into every climate change article and trolls the hell out of it, no point giving him facts he is here just to get you guys worked up.
 
2012-12-11 05:47:35 PM  
Flash_NYC:

Also, for you AGW folks. Just what event, event or data would falsify AGW? In other words, how would we know if Global Warming stopped?

If it stopped corresponding with what we observed in the real world?
 
2012-12-11 05:49:10 PM  

Bullseyed: doyner: tobcc: Dont get me wrong, I think we as humans have changed the climate, but.. we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

I have a clock that is 80 years old, but I don't need to observe it for a decade to determine its periodicity and any variations thereof.

Lots of theater, English and history majors in here.


I know you're not talking about me, right?
 
2012-12-11 05:49:40 PM  
I'll believe Bill Plait is serious about taking on climate change when he has a discussion with Judith Curry.
 
2012-12-11 05:50:26 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:

Questions for the deniers: How does a 40% increase in a known greenhouse gas since the Industrial Revolution NOT cause warming?

Friendship (among molecules) Is Magic!

That, and wishful thinking Wanting. 

Positive reinforcement from people on the radio who tell you what you want to hear helps transcend reality as well.
 
2012-12-11 05:50:27 PM  

sweetmelissa31: rotsky: I'm not an idiot, it just made me skeptical.

Are you skeptical about whether vaccines really don't cause autism too? I mean, autism rates have gone up, and vaccination rates have gone up. There are some scientists who think that vaccines cause autism. I'm just asking questions.


It's been a while since I really checked up on this one, and not sure if you're being sarcastic, but:

The original study "linking" Autism and the MMR vaccine had a sample size of 12 children and dodgy methodology. Even then the study didn't find a link between the vaccine and Autism but a link between a bowel condition in children who had autism who were vaccinated. Of the 12 children in the study 5 had known developmental problems before receiving the vaccine and three never even had autism.

The big question is why parents latched onto this rather questionable study rather than the multitudes of far sounder studies on diet, obesity, exercise, smoking, alcoholism or any other factors that the parents can change that would benefit their children. Hell - when Jamie Oliver tried getting kids to eat vegetables, parents were out protesting and smuggling kids burgers and fries. Parents ignore a vast array of medical knowledge, or even fight it on a regular basis - why on earth did they have to latch onto this one rather than a study on how kids eating diets low in artificial additives and processed foods have better attention spans.

Most studies on the link between autism and the vaccine also relate to this bowel condition and not to a causative link, and they typically use extremely small sample sizes of a few dozen kids.

There have been several HUGE studies done on the link between autism and the MMR vaccine. IIRC the Netherlands did a study looking at every child vaccinated in the entire population over a 30 year period and found no link. The Japanese did a similar study comparing rates before and after they switched vaccine methods and found autism rates went up (when they stopped using MMR) but attributed this to improved diagnosis rather than actual increased rates.
 
2012-12-11 05:52:37 PM  
It's nonsense. And worse, it's dangerous nonsense. Because they're fiddling with the data while the world burns.

It doesn't matter. We're beyond the tipping point. All that's left is minimizing the damage and mitigating the results.

The climate change deniers won. Good luck, folks.
 
2012-12-11 05:53:21 PM  

hutchkc: Damnhippyfreak: olddinosaur: Okay warmers! If fossil fuels are making the earth hotter, what's making it warmer on Mars?

Short answer: It's probably not warming on Mars.

If I recall the warming on Mars was due to bad data, but don't quote me on that one.


I believe he prefers to be called "Lore".
images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-12-11 05:54:26 PM  
What I find questionable is the data insisting it is wholly manmade and the conclusion that we MUST do something to change it if it is.

See the world undergoes climate changes constantly. It always has, that's what drives evolution. It happened before man picked up it's first club, much less built it's first combustion engine or bottled it's first flouro-carbon. If indeed it does kill off mankind years from now so what? That's how nature corrects itself. We will either be replaced by some other species or our genetic ancestors will adapt and mutate to survive the new environmental reality until the Earth goes through another cooling cycle.

Climate Change as it is being presented is religion, not science. The earth must be preserved as it was to preserve humanity. That is pretty much the opposite of what science has taught us about the Earth and evolution.
 
2012-12-11 05:55:09 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Richard Muller did the study, and wrote an NYT Op-Ed titled "The Conversion of a Climate-Change skeptic


Richard Muller in 2008: "The bottom line is that there is a consensus - the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] - and the president needs to know what the IPCC says. Second, they say that most of the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to humans. You need to know that this is from carbon dioxide, and you need to understand which technologies can reduce this and which can't. Roughly 1 degree Fahrenheit of global warming has taken place; we're responsible for one quarter of it. If we cut back so we don't cause any more, global warming will be delayed by three years and keep on going up. And now the developing world is producing most of the carbon dioxide.

[Y]ou need to know how much power you can get in a solar cell, how much power you can get from wind. There are technologies called clean coal, which both candidates have favored. You have to recognize that oil is now considered dangerous and therefore we need to reevaluate some of the technologies that we once dismissed because they were [also seen as] dangerous, like nuclear. We should reevaluate [nuclear energy] and see if it is more or less dangerous than coal. Things like solar and wind may get a lot cheaper, but they aren't cheap enough yet for countries like China, so they are not an immediate solution."



The Koch brothers funneled $1 million to the Cato Institute, an institute that denies the existence of climate change

The Koch brothers fund all sorts of things. Do you think they fund the Cato Institute strictly because the Cato Institute denies global warming? Oh wait, they don't. They just advocate against carbon taxes and regulation.
 
2012-12-11 05:55:39 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Journey with me, subby, back to the early 1600s. You remember studying the 1600s, right? It was a great time of science and learning, but it it was also a great time of scientific misunderstanding. The best of times and the worst of times, if you want to cite a book that's about to be a very, very big Christmas movie. If you're into that sort of gay musical thing, I mean. I'm certainly not, but whatever floats your boat.

But anyway, I distract myself. My point is that, back in the 1600s, everybody -- and I do mean everybody, every peasant and every scientist and every priest, every-freakin'-body--believed in something called Heliocentrism. Which basically was the belief that everything rotated around the sun. No, wait, that's the way it really is. It's the belief that everything rotates around the earth.

No, wait, I was right the first time. Heliocentrism is the belief that everything rotates around the sun, but it's not what everybody believed. Everybody believed that second thing I wrote, about stuff orbiting earth. I don't know what they called it. Earth-centrism maybe. Or Terra-centrism, scientists like using the word "Terra" instead of "Earth" because it's Latin and sounds fancier. But, so, everybody believed in Terra-centrism, and then along comes this guy named Galileo, had the gumption, the guts, the stones to stand up to the world and say NO. The universe is HELIOCENTRIC. Everything orbits the SUN, not the other way around!

Well, as you might imagine, people were pissed off. Nobody likes their entire universe being questioned. Galileo (his friends called him Leo) was imprisoned in his own house, which doesn't sound to bad until you realize they didn't have electricity back then. No TV, no radio, no internet. Imagine that. He was imprisoned for years. But he stuck to his guns. And, eventually, everybody realized that he was right, after all. The sun IS at the center of the universe.

So think about it. If you were to take your fancy little pie chart and p ...


I know, right! This is so true!
These guys totally believed the biggest bunch of horshiat and then science came along and proved them all wrong and they went, like, crazy mad over that fact and demonized everyone in science and basically lied through their teeth all the while getting paid major bucks by the fossil fuel industry to confuse stupid people....wait...this didn't end up where I thought it would. Never mind.
 
2012-12-11 05:55:56 PM  

maxheck: That, and wishful thinking


I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

If the most profitable industry in the history of the human species saw an existential threat from quantum physics or the Theory of Relativity... there would be legions of C-students flooding the internets, insisting that Einstein and Heisenberg were frauds engaging in "junk science".

I'm right about this.
 
2012-12-11 05:57:56 PM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: sweetmelissa31: rotsky: I'm not an idiot, it just made me skeptical.

Are you skeptical about whether vaccines really don't cause autism too? I mean, autism rates have gone up, and vaccination rates have gone up. There are some scientists who think that vaccines cause autism. I'm just asking questions.

It's been a while since I really checked up on this one, and not sure if you're being sarcastic, but:

The original study "linking" Autism and the MMR vaccine had a sample size of 12 children and dodgy methodology. Even then the study didn't find a link between the vaccine and Autism but a link between a bowel condition in children who had autism who were vaccinated. Of the 12 children in the study 5 had known developmental problems before receiving the vaccine and three never even had autism.



It was also written by a doctor trying to market his own "improved" vaccine.
 
2012-12-11 05:58:45 PM  
All this arguing about the causes, but as usual no one even attempts to suggest a fix for it.
 
2012-12-11 05:58:49 PM  
Mr_Fabulous:

maxheck: That, and wishful thinking

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

If the most profitable industry in the history of the human species saw an existential threat from quantum physics or the Theory of Relativity... there would be legions of C-students flooding the internets, insisting that Einstein and Heisenberg were frauds engaging in "junk science".

I'm right about this.


And this applies how? I'm not familiar with your thesis. 

/ Pretty sure I know, but want to hear it.
 
2012-12-11 05:59:06 PM  

Digitalstrange: See the world undergoes climate changes constantly.


We know this. That is irrelevant to the question of what's causing the change now. Try to spend some time learning why scientists believe humans are causing the present warming before tossing out non sequiturs.

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

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

Humanity has an interest in preserving itself. The historical observation that other species have gone extinct in the past is not a normative argument for allowing our species to do so.
 
2012-12-11 05:59:42 PM  
Omg a Pocket Ninja post and all of you assholes are replying to it as if it's serious!?
 
2012-12-11 05:59:46 PM  

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

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


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

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

As a side note: Does anyone have a template for request funds from the NSF? I've got a good theory that's gonna take me at least 25 years to prove.
 
2012-12-11 06:02:59 PM  

Joe Blowme: FTA:" when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they're doing isn't science"

HAHahhahahahahah climate gate


Eight separate investigations, and not a single one found any evidence of wrongdoing.

You have this vast trove of information at your fingertips... why don't you use it?
 
2012-12-11 06:05:15 PM  

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

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

The argument is amplitude of change and risk quotient involved.

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

Such a stupid argument.


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

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


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

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

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

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

maxheck: turnerdude69:

maxheck: turnerdude69:

Geology might not have anything to do with the current climate but it is a window into the past....And there is pretty clear evidence that the Earth has went through many Ice ages and tropical periods..all without the help of man...

And there were forest fires millions of years before humans showed up.

This does not imply that we can't cause forest fires.

That is a stupid line of logic, and you should feel ashamed! :)

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

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

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


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

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

olddinosaur: Climate change, Texas style:

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


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

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

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


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

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

i50.tinypic.com

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

Pocket Ninja: Journey with me, subby, back to the early 1600s. You remember studying the 1600s, right? It was a great time of science and learning, but it it was also a great time of scientific misunderstanding. The best of times and the worst of times, if you want to cite a book that's about to be a very, very big Christmas movie. If you're into that sort of gay musical thing, I mean. I'm certainly not, but whatever floats your boat.

But anyway, I distract myself. My point is that, back in the 1600s, everybody -- and I do mean everybody, every peasant and every scientist and every priest, every-freakin'-body--believed in something called Heliocentrism. Which basically was the belief that everything rotated around the sun. No, wait, that's the way it really is. It's the belief that everything rotates around the earth.

No, wait, I was right the first time. Heliocentrism is the belief that everything rotates around the sun, but it's not what everybody believed. Everybody believed that second thing I wrote, about stuff orbiting earth. I don't know what they called it. Earth-centrism maybe. Or Terra-centrism, scientists like using the word "Terra" instead of "Earth" because it's Latin and sounds fancier. But, so, everybody believed in Terra-centrism, and then along comes this guy named Galileo, had the gumption, the guts, the stones to stand up to the world and say NO. The universe is HELIOCENTRIC. Everything orbits the SUN, not the other way around!

Well, as you might imagine, people were pissed off. Nobody likes their entire universe being questioned. Galileo (his friends called him Leo) was imprisoned in his own house, which doesn't sound to bad until you realize they didn't have electricity back then. No TV, no radio, no internet. Imagine that. He was imprisoned for years. But he stuck to his guns. And, eventually, everybody realized that he was right, after all. The sun IS at the center of the universe.

So think about it. If you were to take your fancy little pie chart and publish it back in the 1600s, what would it look like? The red sliver, which represents plucky ol' Leo, would barely be there at all. And the massive black chunk would represent everybody else who thought he was wrong. AND HE WASN'T WRONG. So what's that tell?

Remember -- being correct means having the courage to stand up to the world when you know you're in the right. It means being the lone voice in a tempest, the single drop in an ocean. Learn from Leo, who was immortalized centuries later in Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, which tells the story of his struggle to shine truth into the world. I find him absolutely inspiring..


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

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


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

grist.files.wordpress.com

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

grist.files.wordpress.com

Link
 
2012-12-11 06:09:49 PM  

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


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

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


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

And neither do any of you...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link


Drone.
 
2012-12-11 06:18:38 PM  

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


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

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

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

And neither do any of you...

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

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

Stop pretending your ignorance is universal.


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

OregonVet: Drone.


ok good talk
 
2012-12-11 06:22:51 PM  

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

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

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

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

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

Link


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

GAT_00: There's also this simple little fact: if you were born after February 1985, you have never experienced a month where the global temperature was below the 20th century average. One month proves nothing. One year proves nothing. 332 months in a row? Only an ignorant fool would claim temperatures are not rising when confronted with the near statistical impossibility of that fact.


That only works if said person died before 2009.

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

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

"Within tolerance"? What does that mean?


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

Farking Canuck: SevenizGud: cameroncrazy1984: So, 8,000+ stations for 10 years proves that the globe hasn't been warming for the past 100-150?

Another tard who can't distinguish between "never warmed" and "currently warming".

You take 10 years out of a system that has been proven to not show clear trends for periods less than 30 years and you call other people 'tards'??

This has literally been pointed out to you over a hundred times but you are too stupid to understand ... your sample size is too small to be relevant. It causes your signal to noise ratio to be too low to get a clear trend.

The following animation explains the difference between how you see data and how intelligent people see data:
[www.skepticalscience.com image 850x578]


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

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

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

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


You're getting stupider with each post.

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

Pocket Ninja: Journey with me, subby, back to the early 1600s. You remember studying the 1600s, right? It was a great time of science and learning, but it it was also a great time of scientific misunderstanding. The best of times and the worst of times, if you want to cite a book that's about to be a very, very big Christmas movie. If you're into that sort of gay musical thing, I mean. I'm certainly not, but whatever floats your boat.

But anyway, I distract myself. My point is that, back in the 1600s, everybody -- and I do mean everybody, every peasant and every scientist and every priest, every-freakin'-body--believed in something called Heliocentrism. Which basically was the belief that everything rotated around the sun. No, wait, that's the way it really is. It's the belief that everything rotates around the earth.

No, wait, I was right the first time. Heliocentrism is the belief that everything rotates around the sun , but it's not what everybody believed. Everybody believed that second thing I wrote, about stuff orbiting earth. I don't know what they called it. Earth-centrism maybe. Or Terra-centrism, scientists like using the word "Terra" instead of "Earth" because it's Latin and sounds fancier. But, so, everybody believed in Terra-centrism, and then along comes this guy named Galileo, had the gumption, the guts, the stones to stand up to the world and say NO. The universe is HELIOCENTRIC. Everything orbits the SUN, not the other way around!

Well, as you might imagine, people were pissed off. Nobody likes their entire universe being questioned. Galileo (his friends called him Leo) was imprisoned in his own house, which doesn't sound to bad until you realize they didn't have electricity back then. No TV, no radio, no internet. Imagine that. He was imprisoned for years. But he stuck to his guns. And, eventually, everybody realized that he was right, after all. The sun IS at the center of the universe.

So think about it. If you were to take your fancy little pie chart and publish it back in the 1600s, what would it look like? The red sliver, which represents plucky ol' Leo, would barely be there at all. And the massive black chunk would represent everybody else who thought he was wrong. AND HE WASN'T WRONG. So what's that tell?

Remember -- being correct means having the courage to stand up to the world when you know you're in the right. It means being the lone voice in a tempest, the single drop in an ocean. Learn from Leo, who was immortalized centuries later in Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, which tells the story of his struggle to shine truth into the world. I find him absolutely inspiring..

 
2012-12-11 06:35:51 PM  

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

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

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

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


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

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

GAT_00: There's also this simple little fact: if you were born after February 1985, you have never experienced a month where the global temperature was below the 20th century average. One month proves nothing. One year proves nothing. 332 months in a row? Only an ignorant fool would claim temperatures are not rising when confronted with the near statistical impossibility of that fact.


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

Mangoose: Science thrives on dissenting ideas, it grows and learns from them.

While that may be true of science, it is not always true of scientists.


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

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

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


For me? Niagara Falls.

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

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

"Within tolerance"? What does that mean?

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

TabASlotB: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 300x404]
Here's a nice .gif of the fake TIME cover.
Those using the fake should feel free to admit to being a complete buffoon.

/hot .gif


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

maxheck: turnerdude69:

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

Examples? Are you making things up???


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

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

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

Thunderpipes: It has happened in the past, will again. The Earth is perfectly capable of responding to CO2. We have had mega greenhouse periods in the past you know, we did not just turn in to Venus.


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

What would fark be without the Florida tag?
 
2012-12-11 06:47:02 PM  

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


Why do you insist on saying this when in the very thread you're posting in there's information that this is blatantly false?
 
2012-12-11 06:48:38 PM  
Whatever! Yes we know it's "Changing" like it has be for millions of years. The only idiots are the ones that are still willing to line the pockets of the likes of Al Gore just because they have changed the wording of something that we have no dang control over. F.Y.I. It has been noted evidence of ancient trees and rivers in Antarctica, I wonder if they freaked over Global cooling back in the day as this happen after the first Ice age blamed for offing cute little dino's.
 
2012-12-11 06:49:16 PM  

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

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

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

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


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

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

/just the solutions themselves show that they don't really want to fix anything, just demand more cake and fuel to consume while denying it to others
//like "planting forests and leaving them alone," a solution designed to crowd out human habitation while doing far less to sequester carbon than "planting switchgrass, harvesting it, and using carbon-neutral transports to bury it at the bottom of abandoned coal mines"
 
2012-12-11 06:50:33 PM  
www.csicon.org 

WWCD
 
2012-12-11 06:53:00 PM  

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


It`s always a sky blue sky, sometimes you can`t see it for the clouds or the rock though.
 
2012-12-11 06:53:27 PM  

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

"Within tolerance"? What does that mean?

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

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


Everybody is not wrong...Where did I say that???You are putting words in my mouth now.. I would not have this opinion if I had not looked at everything I can and still do ..And my opinion is always subject to change .....I trust more in geological and fossil records than I do in the made up interpretations of ice cores and tree ring data that is just plain flawed...
 
2012-12-11 06:54:03 PM  
I STILL don't believe it.
 
2012-12-11 06:54:09 PM  
I propose we pick a fight with China. Nuclear war knocks out a lot of industry.
 
2012-12-11 06:55:23 PM  

RobertBruce: And before 1.3 million years ago we were warmer for a long long time. Sure we're changing. It's the "human caused" that is bullshiat.


I blame Women's Liberation.

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

There is shiat in there that is DEADLY TOXIC.

The increase in fossil fuel consumption?

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

After them comes the Gubbermint.

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

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

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

Cowards one and all. When the warmists start self immoleating to ease the human burden of Gaiam, maybe I'll sign on to reduce my foot print. Because that really does produce a lot of carbon, ask Himmler.
 
2012-12-11 06:56:33 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: turnerdude69: you trust too much...Skeptics think....you follow

Given the context, this might be the stupidest comment I've ever seen on fark. In a decade. Go you.

So explain yourself...Do you believe everything you read???
 
2012-12-11 06:57:41 PM  
climate has changed throughout history.

so what?
 
2012-12-11 06:57:56 PM  

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

You can have whatever opinion you want. But you don't get to make up your own facts.
 
2012-12-11 07:00:00 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: My neocon friend, who, at times, I barely resist slapping in the back of the head, is convinced that scientists are making up global warming so they can get their sweet, sweet hands on some of that grant money. He apparently believes that grant money comes in massive blocks and that a scientist uses it not for research, but to buy himself nice things. He told me once that he wanted to be a scientist so he could use the grant money to buy himself a bigger house.


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

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

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

/this guy also went on a rant about the IPCC totally being an international conspiracy to steal money from the west, as was evidenced by the billions of dollars in it's budget...he made the mistake of going on this rant in front of me with an internet connection.
/I think it took about 1 minute to work out their budget comes to a few million per year. Pretty small potatoes for the work they're trying to do.
 
2012-12-11 07:00:23 PM  
would be good to do a similar chart

centuries during which the climate has not changed.

It would probably look the same.
 
2012-12-11 07:00:45 PM  

RobertBruce: And before 1.3 million years ago we were warmer for a long long time. Sure we're changing. It's the "human caused" that is bullshiat.


It's not like we closed the ozone hole by banning CFCs? There's absolutely no precedent that human activity can directly affect the atmosphere. Nope. None whatsoever.
 
2012-12-11 07:02:35 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.)
 
2012-12-11 07:02:41 PM  
Subby sucks his mother's d***.

Which turns out to be Al Gore. Very odd Fact-Denying Family.
 
2012-12-11 07:02:53 PM  
I am reading a book that Carl Sagan wrote called 'Cosmos'. There was one particular exert that I feel pertains pretty well to this:

"In our ignorance [of climate change], we continue to push and pull, to pollute the atmosphere and brighten the land, oblivious of the fact that the long-term consequences are largely unknown. Our intelligence and technology have given us the power to affect the climate. How will we use this power? Are we willing to tolerate ignorance and complacency in matters that affect the entire human family?"
 
2012-12-11 07:03:47 PM  

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

For me? Niagara Falls.

I'm sorry, you were saying?


Then Kudos to you for living a carbon free lifestyle....As long as you are not using gas or buying anything that was not renewable that is....Which I'm 99.99% sure you are
 
2012-12-11 07:04:25 PM  

ltdanman44: [redgreenandblue.org image 480x326]


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

I don't have kids and increasingly, I find myself caring less about how much we are shiatting in our sandbox. Unless immortality arrives I won't have to worry about the results. If you have kids, you should smarten the hell up IMHO.
 
2012-12-11 07:05:21 PM  

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

Now this is a fair observation, with just those two slides presented. It's not pointless in response to the post I was replying too. So there's that.


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!).....
 
2012-12-11 07:06:52 PM  

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

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


Because he is right...the information is flawed
 
2012-12-11 07:10:30 PM  
I'm sitting here with the furnace off, on Dec 11th, in Canada, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

Keep the warming coming! I'm saving on my heating bill! Soon, I;ll be able to grow coffee in my back yard!
 
2012-12-11 07:12:05 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Has anyone ever said the planet wasn't changing?! Any dumb enough to think that the planet was always this way and will always be this way?!

If there is throw them down a canyon and while they fall to their death yell "there use to be ice here!".


fark it. We might as well start nuking each other because does anyone really believe that the planet doesn't get hit by giant comets every once in a while?
 
2012-12-11 07:12:05 PM  

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


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

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

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

etc.

Not that I go out of my way to pollute mind you...just sayin..
 
2012-12-11 07:12:22 PM  
Clemkadidlefark:

Which turns out to be Al Gore.

DRINK!
 
2012-12-11 07:12:44 PM  

SlothB77: [thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]


thefrugalwinesnob.com

4.bp.blogspot.comwww.letitpass.com

SCIENCE!!! 

/It gets better with age.
 
2012-12-11 07:13:09 PM  
as a layman observeri would agree that the weather is certainly different than it was twenty years ago. the winters so seem shorter (locally), weather does seem more severe (locally), and the summers have been hell (locally). and there seems to be plenty of evidence that the rest of the planet is warming too. the problem i have is that all the initiatives being proposed to supposedly slow global warming are all a bunch of crap. electric (coal powered) cars are just as bad, if not worse, than typical combustion. "carbon trading" is just a way to make money off of the crisis scare and has only slowed emissions in areas implemented by fractional amounts. solar and wind do not and probably will never meet demand or are cost prohibitive. on top of all this the EPA is charging power companies out of the ass to even make an effort to move from fossil fuel power production. for example, georgia power, made the effort to switch one of it's coal powered plants to a wood pellet powered plant. estimate costs of the conversion and engineered were 200 million dollars. once they presented their plans to the epa, the epa then added another 150 million dollars in regulatory fees and extra expenditures in order to build the plant. result? GP said fark it, they shut down the plant and 380 people lost their jobs.
I'm all for clean water, clean air, and conserving what wilderness we have left, but until "climate scientists" come up with a feasible solution to this apparent problem it's all just a bunch of hot air.
 
2012-12-11 07:13:18 PM  

maxheck: turnerdude69:
maxheck: turnerdude69:

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

Examples? Are you making things up???

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

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

I'm pretty sure it's green though....

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

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


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

A majority does not make something fact...Just because most scientists believe something now does not make them correct...This seems to be the best argument here...
 
2012-12-11 07:17:23 PM  
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
 
2012-12-11 07:17:41 PM  
How to make a successful con

1. Find a naturally occurring event and tell people it is man made.
2. Get control of the periodicals dedicated to the area of science (as the CRU admitted)
3. Tell people it must be real because of all of the articles written about it.
4. Rake in lots of money selling things like carbon credits.
 
2012-12-11 07:17:45 PM  
OMG did you see the Doctor Who cupcakes in the thread below this one?!?
 
2012-12-11 07:19:06 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-11 07:19:31 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-11 07:20:09 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


LOVE IT!!!!
 
2012-12-11 07:20:53 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-11 07:21:28 PM  

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

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


so then naturally all the money is going to fund initiatives to actually create feasible technology to solve the problem instead of just look at thermometers right?
 
2012-12-11 07:22:04 PM  
In a recent guest blog, John McLean explained how Australia's CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology (Power and Smith) respectively were reporting a period of unprecedented El Niño dominance the last 30 years, which they blamed on human activity. Last year in May it was Vecchi who told us there was a just 1% probability that this was due to natural events.

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

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

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


Link
 
2012-12-11 07:24:17 PM  

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

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

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


I think that's called alternative energy research...and yea, in the US the National Science Foundation spends millions of dollars on research into it.
 
2012-12-11 07:25:22 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-11 07:26:23 PM  

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

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

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

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

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

Link


so wouldn't a "+0.8°C" be within the "+-1.0°C" range?
waaaaay to negate your own argument.
 
2012-12-11 07:27:05 PM  

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


And yet the predictions the IPCC made 20 years ago have mostly come true. Odd that, isn't it?
 
2012-12-11 07:28:08 PM  

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.
 
2012-12-11 07:28:30 PM  

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
 
2012-12-11 07:29:59 PM  

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
 
2012-12-11 07:30:40 PM  

scalpod: RobertBruce: And before 1.3 million years ago we were warmer for a long long time. Sure we're changing. It's the "human caused" that is bullshiat.

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


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

Look THAT one up in a book.
 
2012-12-11 07:32:21 PM  

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

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


Exactly what predictions are you talking about? None of their predictions have come true.
 
2012-12-11 07:34:45 PM  

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?
 
2012-12-11 07:36:13 PM  
This article says nothing about global warming being man made, which is what the debate is about 99 percent of the time.
 
2012-12-11 07:37:12 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: climate has changed throughout history.

so what?


The weather is now a partisan issue.
 
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 t