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.
Note: forcing pagination mode for this thread because of the high number of comments. (why?)

(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
    More: Spiffy, pie charts, climate change  
•       •       •

37726 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2012 at 3:50 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest

 
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...