If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Here it is, the only pie graph you'll ever need to deal with the next climate-change-denying idiot   (slate.com) divider line 954
    More: Spiffy, pie charts, climate change  
•       •       •

37670 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2012 at 3:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 954 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report