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  
•       •       •

37674 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2012 at 3:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-12 12:34:43 AM  

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


Like anyone here is qualified to read, interpret or understand where that data comes from. For that you need experts and I'll stick with the climatologists rather than the shills for the oil companies.
 
2012-12-12 12:39:40 AM  

brantgoose: Funny thing: when you do this, removing the anthropogenic factors such as fossil fuel burning, deforestation, agriculture, land use, cities, concrete making, etc., the model fails to model the current data on climate change using only natural causes


www.scotese.com

Do the models account for that? That's a LOT of change that has nothing to do with humans. I'm just asking. The best anyone can come up with is dismissing it out of hand and derision when a graph like that appears. "It's totally, like, irrelevant, man. Take a hit on this and chill out."
We just had a cold spell that history shows us is usually temporary in the grand scheme of things, and sliding out of that can go rapidly or take a while, or jag up and down over long periods of time(as it has during the latest cooling trend).

brantgoose: Our fingerprints are all over it.


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

Isn't it possible that it was the wind(by itself or blowing debris), an earthquake, hail, or thermal expansion and too tight of a frame?
 
2012-12-12 12:40:47 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: 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.


Hybrid cars and carbon credits are a solution to global warming in the same way that a bandage shot from a cannon is a solution to a gunshot wound. That said, you clearly need to put your opinions in context. Every metric shows the Earth is warming at a rate faster than any point in its history.

You have a lot of "hippie" concepts mixed up with climate change in your head. GM crops aren't a problem, they're the only reason billions of us haven't died. We can have our busy modern world AND adapt to coming changes AND try to mitigate further effects.
 
2012-12-12 12:43:52 AM  

Balchinian: 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.


You don't start anything in science with predetermined conclusions, what part of that don't you understand?
 
2012-12-12 12:44:40 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Do the models account for that? That's a LOT of change that has nothing to do with humans. I'm just asking. The best anyone can come up with is dismissing it out of hand and derision when a graph like that appears. "It's totally, like, irrelevant, man. Take a hit on this and chill out."
We just had a cold spell that history shows us is usually temporary in the grand scheme of things, and sliding out of that can go rapidly or take a while, or jag up and down over long periods of time(as it has during the latest cooling trend).

brantgoose: Our fingerprints are all over it.

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

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


97% of science is on board with the data that we are influencing climate.

Tell me you've got some secret trump card that beats that.
 
2012-12-12 12:46:28 AM  

buck1138
So Nasa totaly makes shiat up except between 2000 and 2012?


Not at all. NASA knows exactly what it's doing... they're really on the ball.

Link 2
 
2012-12-12 12:46:42 AM  
From TFA:

So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this.

OH..... *SNAP*
 
2012-12-12 12:53:32 AM  

whidbey: Tell me you've got some secret trump card that beats that.


We're not playing cards here. Reality is not a Democracy. Popular vote counts for squat.

Plus:
I'm not even trying to convince people one way or the other. I'm asking about specific points in the support structure, that is all.

I'd even question the deniers, if it looked like they had any relevance. Most of them aren't even going on best guess and nothing needs to call that into question, it fails all on it's own.
 
2012-12-12 12:56:37 AM  

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.


This.
 
2012-12-12 12:57:26 AM  

omeganuepsilon: brantgoose: Funny thing: when you do this, removing the anthropogenic factors such as fossil fuel burning, deforestation, agriculture, land use, cities, concrete making, etc., the model fails to model the current data on climate change using only natural causes

[www.scotese.com image 538x1499]

Do the models account for that? That's a LOT of change that has nothing to do with humans. I'm just asking. The best anyone can come up with is dismissing it out of hand and derision when a graph like that appears. "It's totally, like, irrelevant, man. Take a hit on this and chill out."
We just had a cold spell that history shows us is usually temporary in the grand scheme of things, and sliding out of that can go rapidly or take a while, or jag up and down over long periods of time(as it has during the latest cooling trend).

brantgoose: Our fingerprints are all over it.

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

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



omeganuepsilon: brantgoose: Funny thing: when you do this, removing the anthropogenic factors such as fossil fuel burning, deforestation, agriculture, land use, cities, concrete making, etc., the model fails to model the current data on climate change using only natural causes

[www.scotese.com image 538x1499]

Do the models account for that? That's a LOT of change that has nothing to do with humans. I'm just asking. The best anyone can come up with is dismissing it out of hand and derision when a graph like that appears. "It's totally, like, irrelevant, man. Take a hit on this and chill out."
We just had a cold spell that history shows us is usually temporary in the grand scheme of things, and sliding out of that can go rapidly or take a while, or jag up and down over long periods of time(as it has during the latest cooling trend).

brantgoose: Our fingerprints are all over it.

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

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



Still waiting for a denier to explain how increasing CO2 will NOT cause warming.

*crickets*
 
2012-12-12 12:57:56 AM  

omeganuepsilon: We're not playing cards here. Reality is not a Democracy. Popular vote counts for squat.


Is this a joke?

. I'm asking about specific points in the support structure, that is all.

Then maybe you should educate yourself.

I would start at RealClimate.org or some of the links in TFA.

I'd even question the deniers, if it looked like they had any relevance. Most of them aren't even going on best guess and nothing needs to call that into question, it fails all on it's own.

Why are you making this a "both sides" issue? Man-made climate change is real, and as TFA states, there is no scientific controversy over it.
 
KIA
2012-12-12 01:00:57 AM  

GAT_00: Only an ignorant fool would claim temperatures are not rising when confronted with the near statistical impossibility of that fact.


Okay, let's bottom line it: so what?

The earth has been far warmer and far colder in the past. Oceans rise and fall, glaciers come and go. Siberia may become good farmland while the equatorial belt becomes a desert. Whoopeedee-doo.

Does even one - a single one - of those umpteen thousand reports indicate that there is even a sliver of a chance that Earth will become uninhabitable?
 
2012-12-12 01:04:02 AM  

KIA: GAT_00: Only an ignorant fool would claim temperatures are not rising when confronted with the near statistical impossibility of that fact.

Okay, let's bottom line it: so what?

The earth has been far warmer and far colder in the past. Oceans rise and fall, glaciers come and go. Siberia may become good farmland while the equatorial belt becomes a desert. Whoopeedee-doo.

Does even one - a single one - of those umpteen thousand reports indicate that there is even a sliver of a chance that Earth will become uninhabitable?



We should probably do something about potential impacts long before the point at which Earth becomes uninhabitable, no?
 
2012-12-12 01:11:27 AM  

omeganuepsilon: brantgoose: Funny thing: when you do this, removing the anthropogenic factors such as fossil fuel burning, deforestation, agriculture, land use, cities, concrete making, etc., the model fails to model the current data on climate change using only natural causes

www.scotese.com

Do the models account for that? That's a LOT of change that has nothing to do with humans. I'm just asking. The best anyone can come up with is dismissing it out of hand and derision when a graph like that appears. "It's totally, like, irrelevant, man. Take a hit on this and chill out."
We just had a cold spell that history shows us is usually temporary in the grand scheme of things, and sliding out of that can go rapidly or take a while, or jag up and down over long periods of time(as it has during the latest cooling trend).


A few points that should be brought up. First, that changes in the past had nothing to do with humans does not mean that we as humans cannot also make changes. The comparison that gets bandied about here is that one can still commit arson even though naturally-set forest fires exist. Changes due to other factors are not mutually exclusive with anthropogenic ones.

The other point is to note that while what you're posting represents a lot of change, also note that it's also over a very, very long period of time. Keep in mind that when we talk about the problems with climate change, we're worried about the impact it will have in the next few centuries to the biophysical systems on which we are currently adapted to. Again, that changes have happened in the past does not mean that current changes don't exist, aren't a problem, or cannot be caused in part by humans.
 
2012-12-12 01:13:12 AM  

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

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


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


So eat some HADCRUT3 data, biatch.


That's amazing! You managed to show part of a data set that goes for quite a bit more than 15 years. Why again do you insist on using 15 years?

Or are you just afraid to admit that you don't know what the fark you're talking about?

Show everyone the data for 30 years, farkstick.
 
2012-12-12 01:18:09 AM  

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.


This.
 
2012-12-12 01:20:59 AM  
and before you come back with some inane babbling about how anyone should only care about what's happening now, not 30 years ago, here's just the data you just posted, from 2008 onwards:

s11.postimage.org


Care to explain how you're not a lying sack of shiat who's cherrypicking numbers?
 
2012-12-12 01:23:12 AM  

firefly212: fiver5: OK fine you win, climate change is real.

So lets all give more money to the government.

Well, thanks... I was just gonna say we should end subsidies for oil companies and instead focus on clean energy production... but I appreciate your offer of higher taxes, should they be necessary.


Define "clean energy".

I hope you are going to use nuclear, it is the cleanest, lest CO2 generating one.

/i has enginneering degree, please use big words.
 
2012-12-12 01:24:32 AM  

Slam1263: I hope you are going to use nuclear, it is the cleanest, lest CO2 generating one.


Not if we don't have to.
 
2012-12-12 01:28:49 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: omeganuepsilon: brantgoose: Funny thing: when you do this, removing the anthropogenic factors such as fossil fuel burning, deforestation, agriculture, land use, cities, concrete making, etc., the model fails to model the current data on climate change using only natural causes

www.scotese.com

Do the models account for that? That's a LOT of change that has nothing to do with humans. I'm just asking. The best anyone can come up with is dismissing it out of hand and derision when a graph like that appears. "It's totally, like, irrelevant, man. Take a hit on this and chill out."
We just had a cold spell that history shows us is usually temporary in the grand scheme of things, and sliding out of that can go rapidly or take a while, or jag up and down over long periods of time(as it has during the latest cooling trend).

A few points that should be brought up. First, that changes in the past had nothing to do with humans does not mean that we as humans cannot also make changes. The comparison that gets bandied about here is that one can still commit arson even though naturally-set forest fires exist. Changes due to other factors are not mutually exclusive with anthropogenic ones.

The other point is to note that while what you're posting represents a lot of change, also note that it's also over a very, very long period of time. Keep in mind that when we talk about the problems with climate change, we're worried about the impact it will have in the next few centuries to the biophysical systems on which we are currently adapted to. Again, that changes have happened in the past does not mean that current changes don't exist, aren't a problem, or cannot be caused in part by humans.


See, the others could take lessons from you in intelligent and rational responses.
 
2012-12-12 01:31:34 AM  

omeganuepsilon: See, the others could take lessons from you in intelligent and rational responses.


Forgive me. I should have treated your own rather arrogant response with courtesy it didn't really deserve. Apologies.
 
2012-12-12 01:38:49 AM  

Bronzemom: 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.


Right, why is nobody advocating an end to deforestation and planting more trees... moron.


Burying trees is one of the simplest methods of carbon sequestration and the most well known as well.
 
2012-12-12 01:46:13 AM  

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?


To disprove the human element, continued rising temperatures after we cease releasing such incredible levels of greenhouse gases, and no positive feedback loop stemming from our current or near future state can be found. It's not like greenhouse gases are otherwise benign, climate change is one reason among many to curtail pollution.

The planet warms and cools on its own, but never this quickly.
 
2012-12-12 01:50:14 AM  

LavenderWolf: Bronzemom: 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.

Right, why is nobody advocating an end to deforestation and planting more trees... moron.


Burying trees is one of the simplest methods of carbon sequestration and the most well known as well.


But if we bury them, a future generation will just dig them up and burn them as coal.

HOLY CRAP, the cavemen buried enormous amounts of carbony things, and we just dug them up and burnt them as coal.

WHY DIDN'T WE LEARN ABOUT THIS SOONER? WHO'S GOING TO PAY ME TO STOP?

WHERE IS MY CAPSLOCK AT?
 
2012-12-12 01:54:09 AM  

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


And what makes your feeble mind conclude that natural cycles aren't accounted for?
 
2012-12-12 02:20:27 AM  

jjdaugh: 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.


Yes, moron, they do teach about natural cycles still. Oh pray tell, oh genius man, what made you realise the entirety of the scientific world forgot about such natural cycles.
 
2012-12-12 02:39:18 AM  

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

Link"



*yawn* Yet another rehash of Pascal's Wager, originally used to convince atheists to believe in God. Bumper stickers in the bible belt sum this up as, "If you're living like there's no God, you'd better be right."


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

Funny, actual economists don't agree about the "definitively catastrophic" part. In fact, they were the ones who recommended carbon pricing as a policy instrument."



If you dress a pig up in a cocktail gown, it's still a pig. Dressing up a policy of abandoning energy sources that exist in abundance in favor of those that are scarce, unreliable, or not nearly ready for prime-time in fancy names like "carbon pricing" is an exercise in self-delusion. It's kind of sad that a (presumably) grown adult would need an explanation for how such a policy is economically disastrous.


Ambitwistor: "What's also funny is how people froth at the mouth at how "hyperbolized" global warming is, but never question how hyperbolized is the supposed certain economic doom that any conceivable climate mitigation policy would bring."



Of course I question it. I'm quite open to hearing how practical, effective climate mitigation policy could be implemented (provided that it's actually necessary) without economic doom. But current research isn't optimistic:

www.springerlink.com

Basically, in order to flatline global CO2 emissions by 2050, the developed world would have to cut output to nearly ZERO in 38 years. More importantly, in the absence of China and India following suit, all that investment will make dick worth of difference.

So yes -- I'm skeptical of the value of ceding global competitiveness by implementing policies that no other meaningful players will implement just so we can pat ourselves on the back and pretend we're making an impact against a problem that may or may not actually be a genuine threat. I'm sorry that you equate this with "frothing at the mouth".
 
2012-12-12 02:51:52 AM  
imageshack.us

24 scientists now live aboard the yachts that Big Oil bought for them. Credibility is a small price to pay, right?
 
2012-12-12 03:04:45 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: 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?


For a variety of reasons, basically, yes. We're not going to hurt the planet, we're just making it harder for ourselves to live on it.
 
2012-12-12 03:19:29 AM  

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.


The reason those changes in consensus are important is that they almost never happen. To overturn accepted science you have to do better science. There is an objective truth and once you have a close approximation of it, subsequent changes to theory are minute corrections which don't make the same impact.
 
m00
2012-12-12 03:22:19 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:

A few points that should be brought up. First, that changes in the past had nothing to do with humans does not mean that we as humans cannot also make changes. The comparison that gets bandied about here is that one can still commit arson even though naturally-set forest fires exist. Changes due to other factors are not mutually exclusive with anthropogenic ones.

The other point is to note that while what you're posting represents a lot of change, also note that it's also over a very, very long period of time. Keep in mind that when we talk about the problems with climate change, we're worried about the impact it will have in the next few centuries to the biophysical systems on which we are currently adapted to. Again, that changes have happened in the past does not mean that current changes don't exist, aren't a problem, or cannot be caused in part by humans.

Okay, lets pretend for a second that this isn't a horribly politicized issue that is wrapped up in identity politics.

There are a couple of relevant questions:

1) Is the earth warming (when looking at a trend over millions of years)?
2) If yes, would the earth be warming (anyway) if not for humans?
3) If yes, is the "human contribution" substantially significant to the overall warming effect?
4) If yes, do we have the ability to mitigate the "human contribution" (at this time in our civilization) without causing human suffering and misery?
5) If yes, do we have the ability to engineer our environment without making matters worse (there are a couple of scientific proposals that involve reflectants, and so forth)
6) And before we go through all this, are we positive that global warming is necessarily detrimental to our habitat?

Answers:

1) yes
2) yes
3) maybe
4) maybe
5) no, we'd probably make matters worse
6) unknown
 
m00
2012-12-12 03:23:23 AM  
Sorry damnhippy freak, forgot to italicize the first two paragraphs (which are yours). I was cleaning up the comment and removed too many tags :p
 
2012-12-12 04:04:07 AM  
Can we get a pie chart that shows: percentage of treatise on flat earth vs round earth in 1600?
 
2012-12-12 04:25:36 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: All this arguing about the causes, but as usual no one even attempts to suggest a fix for it.


What are you talking about? Off the top of my head, grow and bury trees. Voila, carbon removed from the atmosphere.
 
2012-12-12 04:44:56 AM  

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]


I can't help but notice you are now using a totally different data range that you used to. What happened? You went from the last 179 months worth of data to only the last ~120.

Of course you never, ever gave a reason why the last 179 months were relevant - but perhaps you can give us a reason why the last 120 are relevant instead?
=Smidge=
 
2012-12-12 05:03:18 AM  

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


How true.... HOWEVER (you knew this was coming), here's some food for thought: Link, Link, Link
 
2012-12-12 05:21:20 AM  

People_are_Idiots: How true.... HOWEVER (you knew this was coming), here's some food for thought: Link, Link, Link


1) Can't read the whole article from the first link, but in true newsstand magazine tradition I'm guessing it's the "Headline Asks question? Article answers 'no'" format of journalism. (See also: famous "Was Darwin Wrong? - No." article.)

2) The article does not support the claim that scientists believed we were headed for another ice age. (See also: This video explaining what was going on back then.)

3) Aerosols were recognized as a potentially major problem and were the linchpin of many global cooling scenarios. Laws and regulations were passed to reduce anthropogenic aerosols. They were effective to the point that the possibility of a cooling scenario has been greatly diminished. See also: Ozone depletion.
=Smidge=
 
2012-12-12 05:39:49 AM  
Obviously the climate changes, you only have to go back 5% of the earths history and look at average temperatures to see the evidence.
 
2012-12-12 05:51:46 AM  
No, your power does not come from any single source like that. Niagara Falls puts power into the same grid you use, but only makes up a tiny portion of the energy you actually pull out of the grid.

Also, it only supplies a lot of power at night.
 
2012-12-12 06:27:59 AM  

whidbey: omeganuepsilon: We're not playing cards here. Reality is not a Democracy. Popular vote counts for squat.

Is this a joke?

. I'm asking about specific points in the support structure, that is all.

Then maybe you should educate yourself.

I would start at RealClimate.org or some of the links in TFA.

I'd even question the deniers, if it looked like they had any relevance. Most of them aren't even going on best guess and nothing needs to call that into question, it fails all on it's own.

Why are you making this a "both sides" issue? Man-made climate change is real, and as TFA states, there is no scientific controversy over it.


Don't bother, he's another CC denier hiding behind claims of skepticism and "asking questions".

Here's a gem from a previous thread that shows how he really feels (bold is my emphasis).

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

Any other perspective is anti-corporation greenpeace nonsense or a reasonable facsimile thereof. 
 

Yes, any perspective other than we're "coming out of an ice age" is anti corporation greenpeace nonsense. As in, 99% of the published work in the field is nonsense because he says so.

Feel free to read the rest of that thread and this one where Common Sense and I provide explanations and links for all his questions, but he never budges an inch. It's another great example of a self proclaimed skeptic being a flat out denier. 

/cue the complaint that using his own posts on a public forum against him constitutes stalking
 
2012-12-12 06:32:26 AM  

spmkk: Of course I question it. I'm quite open to hearing how practical, effective climate mitigation policy could be implemented (provided that it's actually necessary) without economic doom. But current research isn't optimistic


Thanks for supporting your statement with a link to something substantial. I'll be sure to look it over. Check out Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change

They come to the opposite conclusion. The costs of mitigation are much lower than the costs of adaption.
 
2012-12-12 06:59:43 AM  

DustBunny: 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.


Yep. During my brief time as a grant writer, I was astounded by just how little some of these scientists are paid ... they MIGHT get a grant for 50k for 2 years, and then they have to document every single iota of procedure and also take any additional supplies out of that. There were some pretty hardcore warnings in some of the grant apps about abuse of funds and how you would never find work in this country again, etc.

/have yet to meet a grant-funded scientist living the "high life"
 
2012-12-12 07:49:10 AM  


What scientists say
www.slate.com


What climate change deniers say

i.qkme.me


 
2012-12-12 07:50:28 AM  

Rev. Skarekroe: Allow me to retort:

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


Well done. But you forgot "Jerbs! "
 
2012-12-12 07:52:13 AM  

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



Why yes, scientific understanding of the world DOES change in THIRTY YEARS.

/ Unlike religious or superstitious ignorance.
 
2012-12-12 07:53:36 AM  
Of course the climate is changing. The world used to be covered by ice. Then people used so many fossil fuels and clearcut so many rainforests that the ice age ended. That's how it happened, right? Humanity caused the warming that brought us out of the ice age, right? Because everyone knows that only humans affect climate, and only giving money to politicians can fix the climate again.
 
2012-12-12 07:55:53 AM  
www.amsterdamtrader.com 

/did I do it right?
 
2012-12-12 08:50:39 AM  

m00: 6) And before we go through all this, are we positive that global warming is necessarily detrimental to our habitat?


Dunno. Is flooding all our costal cities and turning large swaths of land into desert detrimental?

IMO we're too dumb as a species, we elect politicians that are too short-sighted, and we're too lazy personally to fix this in time. At least we'll get our act together when food can no longer be produced outdoors.

/norwegian
//hate the way my country is contributing to the problem
///thorium FTW
 
2012-12-12 08:54:38 AM  

SevenizGud: Yeah, I cite the last 10+ years of data straight from NASA's website, and even give the URL so people can check...and somehow I'm going to "get my ass handed to me".


Yes ... when it is constantly pointed out to you that 10 years is too small a sample set to see a trend in all the noise of the short term effects (like el nino and la nina, etc) yet you keep using them anyway.

And when it is also pointed out to you that, using your same data source, if you take a slightly longer sample or a slightly shorter sample, it is a downward trend.

Clearly you are cherry picking the one dataset that starts with a high outlier such that it gives an ever so slight downward trend.

You partake in pure and obvious intellectual dishonesty ... you are an idiot ... and you represent the denier community very well.

/the only good thing about you is that you are not smart enough to be deceptive like your fellow deniers ... your lies are blatantly obvious
 
2012-12-12 08:56:01 AM  
A you dumb farks STILL fighting over climate change?!? Really?

It's really quite simple

NO ONE CARES. IT DOESN"T MATTER IF YOU ARE RIGHT. NOTHING WILL CHANGE. WE WILL NOT ADJUST OUR LIVES AT ALL. WE WILL SIMPLY ADAPT TO WHATEVER NEW WEATHER PATTERNS EMERGE.
GIVE IT UP.
 
Displayed 50 of 954 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report