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.

(NOAA)   The 2012 State of the Climate summary report is available from the NOAA. Subby would try to snark but is too tired from shoveling climate   (ncdc.noaa.gov) divider line 276
    More: Sad, Philadelphia Housing Authority, National Climatic Data Center, climate  
•       •       •

3295 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Feb 2013 at 11:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-02-10 11:31:26 AM
Warming causes melt, melt increases water, increased water increases rain and snow, increased snow doesn't melt in summer causing glaciers, glaciers grow moving from the poles toward the equator in the latest ice age.
 
2013-02-10 11:31:51 AM
I would comment but I've been out shoveling and I need to warm up my wife's boobies.
 
2013-02-10 11:31:58 AM
I totally didn't link to this two weeks ago.
 
2013-02-10 11:32:05 AM
So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.
 
2013-02-10 11:33:22 AM
climatesanity.files.wordpress.com
/oblig
 
2013-02-10 11:33:28 AM

here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.


I thought you were here to help
 
2013-02-10 11:34:09 AM

here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.


6/10, I especially appreciate the quotes around "theory".
 
2013-02-10 11:36:26 AM

X-boxershorts: here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.

I thought you were here to help


I most certainly am. How many Americans have lost their jobs over these failing policies? How much taxpayer money wasted?
 
2013-02-10 11:37:32 AM
Love how they had strike out the alarmist premature text. LOL that's some fine science! You know they only left the the text because WUWT documented their original report and found all the flaws. But go ahead and believe NASA wanted you to know they screwed up and had to rewrite the report.
 
2013-02-10 11:38:23 AM
Fark the Grandkids, I'm cold NOW!

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-10 11:38:33 AM

here to help: X-boxershorts: here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.

I thought you were here to help

I most certainly am. How many Americans have lost their jobs over these failing policies? How much taxpayer money wasted?


Do go on, I hope for clear spcifics
 
2013-02-10 11:38:36 AM

Wolf_Blitzer: here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.

6/10, I especially appreciate the quotes around "theory".


Well that's all it is, isn't it? Even the scientists pushing this agenda the most still call it a theory. They can't prove it.
 
2013-02-10 11:39:45 AM

here to help: X-boxershorts: here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.

I thought you were here to help

I most certainly am. How many Americans have lost their jobs over these failing policies? How much taxpayer money wasted?


How about we think about all the money Dubya wasted fighting a war over WMDs that did not exist and call it even.
 
2013-02-10 11:41:31 AM

X-boxershorts: here to help: X-boxershorts: here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.

I thought you were here to help

I most certainly am. How many Americans have lost their jobs over these failing policies? How much taxpayer money wasted?

Do go on, I hope for clear spcifics



Why don't you ask some coal miners what they think?
 
2013-02-10 11:41:39 AM

here to help: X-boxershorts: here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.

I thought you were here to help

I most certainly am. How many Americans have lost their jobs over these failing policies? How much taxpayer money wasted?


All of them.
 
2013-02-10 11:42:30 AM

Jake Havechek: How about we think about all the money Dubya wasted fighting a war over WMDs that did not exist and call it even.


Both sides are bad? Really?

Weaksauce.
 
2013-02-10 11:42:56 AM
As someone who doesn't typically read things like this, why does it include sentences that were struck through (wrong term I'm sure)?  Shouldn't those have just been left out?  It's like they published the red-lined version.
 
2013-02-10 11:44:00 AM

MisterLoki: I most certainly am. How many Americans have lost their jobs over these failing policies? How much taxpayer money wasted?

All of them.


Not all of them. The eggheads and propagandists are doing pretty well.
 
2013-02-10 11:44:30 AM
Meh...olde news is olde. The climate has been warming, the seas rising and the ice melting for twenty-thousand farking years. It's going to continue to do so for a while yet until it doesn't, and then Canada will disappear. Woohoo! ;^)
 
2013-02-10 11:46:34 AM

here to help: MisterLoki: I most certainly am. How many Americans have lost their jobs over these failing policies? How much taxpayer money wasted?

All of them.

Not all of them. The eggheads and propagandists are doing pretty well.


What about the sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, and dickheads?
 
2013-02-10 11:46:50 AM

CruJones: As someone who doesn't typically read things like this, why does it include sentences that were struck through (wrong term I'm sure)?  Shouldn't those have just been left out?  It's like they published the red-lined version.


Because Anthony Watts discovered they were mistaken and they want to avoid Watts making them look dishonest.
 
2013-02-10 11:47:13 AM

here to help: X-boxershorts: here to help: X-boxershorts: here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.

I thought you were here to help

I most certainly am. How many Americans have lost their jobs over these failing policies? How much taxpayer money wasted?

Do go on, I hope for clear spcifics


Why don't you ask some coal miners what they think?


What about otter scrubbers? Environmental policies mean fewer oil spills, which means fewer job opportunities for the guys who scrub oil off of otters. Why don't we ask THEM what they think?

/Granddad was a coal miner. Coal mining is the worst farking job in the universe, AND it's devastating the Southern Appalachians, where I grew up. Anything that decreases coal mining is a good thing.
 
2013-02-10 11:47:54 AM

here to help: X-boxershorts: here to help: X-boxershorts: here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.

I thought you were here to help

I most certainly am. How many Americans have lost their jobs over these failing policies? How much taxpayer money wasted?

Do go on, I hope for clear spcifics


Why don't you ask some coal miners what they think?


About what? The explosion in natural gas (pun intended) usage that is driving "consumers" away from coal powered things?
That policy? The one implemented by Cheney and Congress and enhanced again in 2005? That one that makes unconventional shale gas drilling exempt from EPA oversight essentially establishing natural gas as the preferred fossil fuel for America for the next few decades?

That Obama policy? (He does have a time machine after all)

Or did you mean the EPA policy that restores the 1996 restrictions on mercury emissions from coal fired power plants?
 
2013-02-10 11:48:59 AM

here to help: Wolf_Blitzer: here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.

6/10, I especially appreciate the quotes around "theory".

Well that's all it is, isn't it? Even the scientists pushing this agenda the most still call it a theory. They can't prove it.


gravity is only a theory, too.  pssh those fancy scientists and their book lernin!  my ignorance is just as valid as their knowledge dagnabit!  i'm a precious snowflake and what i believe, no matter how ignorant, should be taken as fact by everybody else!

while i'm at it, i'm going to write those uppity astronomers and tell them they're wrong and the world revolves around ME, not the sun!  *grumble grumble*
 
2013-02-10 11:49:05 AM
i1275.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-10 11:49:06 AM

here to help: The eggheads and propagandists are doing pretty well.


From whom, exactly, do you get your world view?
 
2013-02-10 11:50:37 AM

here to help: The eggheads and propagandists are doing pretty well.


i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-10 11:51:13 AM

TheOther: here to help: The eggheads and propagandists are doing pretty well.

From whom, exactly, do you get your world view?


I have more degrees than a thermometer. Where do YOU get your facts?
 
2013-02-10 11:51:29 AM
Wait, are we taking here to help seriously? I thought it was a shtick.
 
2013-02-10 11:51:54 AM
Well, I didn't think I would have anything to do on this wet rainy Sunday.
Now, I'll just fire up a few bowls of popcorn, and sit back and watch the clash
of the pro & anti man made global warming posters have at it.

DING DING!  Round 1 has begun!
 
2013-02-10 11:52:08 AM
Is this one of those "It snowed so global warming is a lie" threads? Or did those folks finally notice that the increased energy content of the atmosphere has fueled some crazy strong storms in the past few years?
 
2013-02-10 11:52:43 AM

MisterLoki: Wait, are we taking here to help seriously? I thought it was a shtick.


He is a schtick.

Apparently, with gradients on him too....
 
2013-02-10 11:52:52 AM

here to help: Wolf_Blitzer: here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.

6/10, I especially appreciate the quotes around "theory".

Well that's all it is, isn't it? Even the scientists pushing this agenda the most still call it a theory. They can't prove it.


You don't know what a scientist means when he calls something "theory", do you? Here's a hint: its not a synonym for "guess".
 
2013-02-10 11:53:07 AM

here to help: Jake Havechek: How about we think about all the money Dubya wasted fighting a war over WMDs that did not exist and call it even.

Both sides are bad? Really?

Weaksauce.


It'd do my heart a world of good if you froze to death in a freak weather incident with your smug smile on your face.
 
2013-02-10 11:55:37 AM

MisterLoki: Wait, are we taking here to help seriously? I thought it was a shtick.


no we're not, but it's fun to run with. lulz
 
2013-02-10 11:56:28 AM

MisterLoki: Wait, are we taking here to help seriously? I thought it was a shtick.


It's why he was favorited as "here to derp" and given the orange 4 reserved for trolls.
 
2013-02-10 11:56:28 AM
Lookit... the earth's climate is in constant flux. The temperature rises and cools all the time. It is a natural cycle. If you think our species is capable of having any significant impact on this planet which has survived thousands of years of these peaks and valleys you are an egotist and know nothing about the true nature of science.
 
2013-02-10 11:58:36 AM
From Dr. Jeff Masters at Wunderground

The old adage, "it's too cold to snow", has some truth to it, and there is research supporting the idea that the average climate in the U.S. is colder than optimal to support the heaviest snowstorms. For example, Changnon et al. (2006) found that for the contiguous U.S. between 1900 - 2001, 61% - 80% of all heavy snowstorms of 6+ inches occurred during winters with above normal temperatures. The authors also found that 61% - 85% of all heavy snowstorms of 6+ inches occurred during winters that were wetter than average. The authors conclude, "a future with wetter and warmer winters, which is one outcome expected (National Assessment Synthesis Team 2001), will bring more heavy snowstorms of 6+ inches than in 1901 - 2000." The authors found that over the U.S. as a whole, there had been a slight but significant increase in heavy snowstorms of 6+ inches than in 1901 - 2000. If the climate continues to warm, we should expect an increase in heavy snow events for a few decades, until the climate grows so warm that we pass the point where winter temperatures are at the optimum for heavy snow events.
 
2013-02-10 12:01:03 PM

here to help: Lookit... the earth's climate is in constant flux. The temperature rises and cools all the time. It is a natural cycle. If you think our species is capable of having any significant impact on this planet which has survived thousands of years of these peaks and valleys you are an egotist and know nothing about the true nature of science.


The primary control on Earth's climate over geological time scales is the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is up 40% from pre-industrial levels and increasing rapidly, an effect that can be directly traced to fossil fuel burning due to the change in isotopic composition of the CO2. If you are incapable of accepting these facts you are willfully anti-science and anti-reality.
 
2013-02-10 12:02:12 PM
While I think global warming is a crock of shiat, lets examine some of the good that is coming from greener energy and if it isn't a crock what we could see as positives.

Cleaner cities, fewer chemicals (if done properly), less expensive gas (it is high now, think about how much higher if we didn't have more fuel efficient vehicles), economic resurgent, green buildings and fewer items winding up in land fills.

If it is true then we could save baby seals or some shiat.
 
2013-02-10 12:02:16 PM
i.imgur.com

GOP approved!
 
2013-02-10 12:03:19 PM

here to help: Lookit... the earth's climate is in constant flux. The temperature rises and cools all the time. It is a natural cycle. If you think our species is capable of having any significant impact on this planet which has survived thousands of years of these peaks and valleys you are an egotist and know nothing about the true nature of science.


Oh man, that was a good one.

I wasn't sure whether he was a troll or not until he crafted this "thousands of years" response.

Well done.
 
2013-02-10 12:03:31 PM
I'm suspicious of ANY government-sponsored climate studies, especially NOAA. If their "scientific" study doesn't agree with the current politics, they are out of a job.
 
2013-02-10 12:04:02 PM
here to help

Can you please change your nick to something that isn't a commonly-used phrase so that I can put you on ignore?
 
2013-02-10 12:04:04 PM

encyclopediaplushuman: [climatesanity.files.wordpress.com image 850x579]
/oblig


I've always disliked that cartoon.  It has always reminded me of the types of things religious groups push.  "Why not follow our commandments, even if we are wrong at least you still lived a moral life."
 
2013-02-10 12:05:37 PM

KCCO: encyclopediaplushuman: [climatesanity.files.wordpress.com image 850x579]
/oblig

I've always disliked that cartoon.  It has always reminded me of the types of things religious groups push.  "Why not follow our commandments, even if we are wrong at least you still lived a moral life."


I've always liked that cartoon.  You've now ruined it for me.
 
2013-02-10 12:06:20 PM

here to help: Lookit... the earth's climate is in constant flux. The temperature rises and cools all the time. It is a natural cycle. If you think our species is capable of having any significant impact on this planet which has survived thousands of years of these peaks and valleys you are an egotist and know nothing about the true nature of science.


Just curious, do you believe cigarettes are healthy?

What about the shape of the earth or heliocentrism?
 
2013-02-10 12:06:28 PM

KCCO: I've always disliked that cartoon. It has always reminded me of the types of things religious groups push. "Why not follow our commandments, even if we are wrong at least you still lived a moral life."


Live in Beijing for a while, then tell me again how the two are similar.
 
2013-02-10 12:06:35 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Here's a hint: its not a synonym for "guess".


Main Entry: theory [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: hypothesis, belief
Synonyms: approach, argument, assumption, base, basis, code, codification, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization, foundation, grounds, guess, guesswork, hunch, idea, ideology, impression, method, outlook, philosophy, plan, position, postulate, premise, presentiment, presumption, proposal, provision, rationale, scheme, shot*, speculation, stab*, supposal, suppose, supposition, surmise, suspicion, system, systemization, theorem, thesis, understanding

Main Entry: guess [ges] Show IPA
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: belief, speculation
Synonyms: assumption, ballpark figure, conclusion, conjecture, deduction, divination, estimate, fancy, feeling, guesstimate, guesswork, hunch, hypothesis, induction, inference, judgment, notion, opinion, postulate, postulation, prediction, presumption, presupposition, reckoning, shot in the dark, shot*, sneaking suspicion, stab*, supposal, supposition, surmisal, surmise, suspicion, theory, thesis, view

lol
 
2013-02-10 12:07:36 PM
Damn it. Once again, I forget to check account signup date before responding.
 
2013-02-10 12:08:09 PM
I can attest to Canada having the warmest summer ever. Edmonton farking sucked last summer. I hope it's not that bad this year.

And of course, the rolling blackouts from all the air conditioners running didn't help either. And the constant rain at the end of it, causing the south side to flood. Jesus.
 
2013-02-10 12:08:57 PM

omeganuepsilon: lol


It's very sad seeing someone who is both ignorant and proud because of it.
 
2013-02-10 12:08:57 PM

AFKobel: Well done.


;-)

James F. Campbell: here to help

Can you please change your nick to something that isn't a commonly-used phrase so that I can put you on ignore?


Oh don't be so grouchy.
 
2013-02-10 12:09:33 PM
The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Our last ice age was 10,000 years ago.

Climates do change and data from 50 years is not going to lead to an accurate finding. The sample size would need to be enormous.

If the timeline of the earth was laid out and every inch equaled 10,000 years, the timeline would be seven miles long. 1 inch since our last ice age is a very small sample since of seven miles.
 
2013-02-10 12:10:29 PM

KCCO: encyclopediaplushuman: [climatesanity.files.wordpress.com image 850x579]
/oblig

I've always disliked that cartoon.  It has always reminded me of the types of things religious groups push.  "Why not follow our commandments, even if we are wrong at least you still lived a moral life."


The difference being, of course, that all of the things in the cartoon are tangibly real.

Poor analogy is poor.
 
2013-02-10 12:11:20 PM

here to help: Oh don't be so grouchy.


There are tons of actual evil shiatbags in this world. Why bother pretending to be an evil shiatbag when you'll never be able to measure up to the real thing, anyway? Meanwhile, the hours of your life are ticking away, ticking down into... what, exactly?

Actually, you know what? Keep posting. If it keeps you from accomplishing anything in the real world (where you might do actual harm to someone who doesn't deserve it), I'm all for it.
 
2013-02-10 12:12:35 PM

James F. Campbell: here to help: Oh don't be so grouchy.

There are tons of actual evil shiatbags in this world. Why bother pretending to be an evil shiatbag when you'll never be able to measure up to the real thing, anyway? Meanwhile, the hours of your life are ticking away, ticking down into... what, exactly?

Actually, you know what? Keep posting. If it keeps you from accomplishing anything in the real world (where you might do actual harm to someone who doesn't deserve it), I'm all for it.


Close your eyes and ask yourself, "Am I taking this way too seriously?"
 
2013-02-10 12:13:07 PM

omeganuepsilon: lol


From the American Association for the Advancement of Science (publishers of <i>Science</i>, one of the two most-respected scientific journals in the world):

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
 
2013-02-10 12:13:31 PM

great_tigers: The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Our last ice age was 10,000 years ago.

Climates do change and data from 50 years is not going to lead to an accurate finding. The sample size would need to be enormous.

If the timeline of the earth was laid out and every inch equaled 10,000 years, the timeline would be seven miles long. 1 inch since our last ice age is a very small sample since of seven miles.


You're not familiar with ice core sampling are you?
 
2013-02-10 12:14:26 PM

great_tigers: The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Our last ice age was 10,000 years ago.

Climates do change and data from 50 years is not going to lead to an accurate finding. The sample size would need to be enormous.

If the timeline of the earth was laid out and every inch equaled 10,000 years, the timeline would be seven miles long. 1 inch since our last ice age is a very small sample since of seven miles.


Hard data from Greenland and Antarctic ice cores provide atmospheric samples going back hundreds of years. The history of Earth's climate is one of cycles within cycles. What the climate was doing hundreds of millions of years ago isn't nearly as relevant to us today and the near future as what it was doing just hundreds of thousands of years ago. Thanks to these ice cores we have a much better idea of what the climate has done recently and what it is likely to do within that context.
 
2013-02-10 12:14:48 PM

James F. Campbell: here to help: Oh don't be so grouchy.

There are tons of actual evil shiatbags in this world. Why bother pretending to be an evil shiatbag when you'll never be able to measure up to the real thing, anyway? Meanwhile, the hours of your life are ticking away, ticking down into... what, exactly?

Actually, you know what? Keep posting. If it keeps you from accomplishing anything in the real world (where you might do actual harm to someone who doesn't deserve it), I'm all for it.


And I suppose as you typed that you were simultaneously solving world hunger. Relax, bro. Just because the world is a crap factory doesn't mean you can't have some fun and crack a smile every now and again.

Yeesh.
 
2013-02-10 12:15:43 PM
Tenth warmest? Certainly buttresses the claims of those who point out global temperatures have been steady the past 15 years.
 
2013-02-10 12:15:45 PM
Er, make that hundreds of thousands of years for those ice cores.
 
2013-02-10 12:16:01 PM

Zeno-25: The difference being, of course, that all of the things in the cartoon are tangibly real.


This
 
2013-02-10 12:16:39 PM
I hope this "controversy" continues for many years, because each year it does, that's more and more oil money that is going to be confiscated to help solve the problem.

You see, the tobacco settlement didn't happen because cigarettes are deadly.  Lots of products are deadly.  The tobacco settlement happened because the tobacco companies spent billions of dollars creating psuedo-scientific front organizations to create the appearance of genuine scientific controversy, where none existed.  Just like with climate change.

So yeah, each year that this goes on, every anonymous idiot on the internet who feels entitled to dismiss objective, settled science, that's just mounting evidence and penalties for the coming climate settlement.
 
2013-02-10 12:17:28 PM

X-boxershorts: great_tigers: The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Our last ice age was 10,000 years ago.

Climates do change and data from 50 years is not going to lead to an accurate finding. The sample size would need to be enormous.

If the timeline of the earth was laid out and every inch equaled 10,000 years, the timeline would be seven miles long. 1 inch since our last ice age is a very small sample since of seven miles.

You're not familiar with ice core sampling are you


How far back do the sample? Also, I understand that they can accurately estimate what the temperature was but what is the deviation for the estimate? I am not getting into if global warming is real or not, I just struggle with some of the math involved.
 
2013-02-10 12:17:47 PM

here to help: AFKobel: Well done.

;-)


You clever bastard. Then again, when there are people on Fark that will make the exact same argument you did completely seriously, its not all that original of a troll :P
 
2013-02-10 12:18:56 PM
Exxon has had a plan in place for north sea offshore exploration since the early 70s.

Think about what that means;  in even making such a plan, they acknowledged that climate change is a reality 40 years ago.

They know it's happening, they know they're causing it, and by god, they have found a way to profit off of it, even if it displaces 2 billion people!
 
2013-02-10 12:19:35 PM

Zeno-25: Er, make that hundreds of thousands of years for those ice cores.


Thanks,

Was like, Hundreds of years? Well I am glad it was cooler during the revolutionary war.
 
2013-02-10 12:19:44 PM

here to help: TheOther: here to help: The eggheads and propagandists are doing pretty well.

From whom, exactly, do you get your world view?

I have more degrees than a thermometer.


So...eggheads.

Where do YOU get your facts?

I never use 'em... they get in the way of my theories.
 
2013-02-10 12:20:16 PM
It's weather, damn you! Weather!!

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-02-10 12:22:41 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: here to help: AFKobel: Well done.

;-)

You clever bastard. Then again, when there are people on Fark that will make the exact same argument you did completely seriously, its not all that original of a troll :P


I've learned from the best. Poe's Law FTW!

Speaking of which... I haven't seen Mike Lowell around for a while.
 
2013-02-10 12:22:58 PM

great_tigers: Zeno-25: Er, make that hundreds of thousands of years for those ice cores.

Thanks,

Was like, Hundreds of years? Well I am glad it was cooler during the revolutionary war.


Not just temperature, but chemical makeup is measured as well. They can measure, with pretty clear accuracy, the atmospheric Co2 percentage going back several thousand years.
 
2013-02-10 12:23:25 PM

great_tigers: How far back do the sample? Also, I understand that they can accurately estimate what the temperature was but what is the deviation for the estimate? I am not getting into if global warming is real or not, I just struggle with some of the math involved.


The oldest currently recovered ice cores from Antarctica go back about 750,000 years. The temperature estimates depend on the oxygen isotope ratios of the ice, and are generally considered accurate to plus or minus half a degree.
 
2013-02-10 12:25:20 PM

X-boxershorts: great_tigers: Zeno-25: Er, make that hundreds of thousands of years for those ice cores.

Thanks,

Was like, Hundreds of years? Well I am glad it was cooler during the revolutionary war.

Not just temperature, but chemical makeup is measured as well. They can measure, with pretty clear accuracy, the atmospheric Co2 percentage going back several thousand years.


Is there data what the temperature was say half way between now and the last ice age? I wonder if it has been a gradual growth since then.

How are they able to figure out what year the ice core was taken from?
 
Xai
2013-02-10 12:30:17 PM
Has anyone noticed that all this snow was due to a huge tropical storm moving north?
 
2013-02-10 12:32:51 PM

great_tigers: How are they able to figure out what year the ice core was taken from?


I guess it's like counting tree rings...different layers actually look different
 
2013-02-10 12:37:55 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: The primary control on Earth's climate over geological time scales is the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is up 40% from pre-industrial levels and increasing rapidly, an effect that can be directly traced to fossil fuel burning due to the change in isotopic composition of the CO2. If you are incapable of accepting these facts you are willfully anti-science and anti-reality.


Bwahahahahahahahaha...bullshiat!

Take a look at this ice core CO2 graph from the past half million years...

www.daviesand.com
If greenhouse gasses were driving temperature, the earth would have gone into runaway greenhouse conditions at least four times in the past half million years. Clearly, that didn't happen, so what DID happen?

Look carefully at the graph. Temperature climbs precede CO2 rise in each case, which occurs as warmer conditions release otherwise trapped gasses into the atmosphere. Then, as earth entered the next glacial period (Ice Age) CO2 is pulled out of the atmosphere in ice, the oceans, frozen taiga and permafrost, etc. IOW, factors other than greenhouse gases caused the climate to warm and cool, and drove the level of CO2 in the air...NOT the other way round, as you claim.

Greenhouses certainly impact climate, and no doubt are contributing something to current conditions, but your claim is blatantly false.
 
2013-02-10 12:38:28 PM

great_tigers: Is there data what the temperature was say half way between now and the last ice age? I wonder if it has been a gradual growth since then.

How are they able to figure out what year the ice core was taken from?


The EPICA core from Dome C (the 750k year one) covers the last *8* complete glacial cycles ("Ice Ages") as they're popularly referred to. During the current interglacial (referred to as the Holocene Interglacial by scientists), the climate has been remarkably stable for the last ten thousand years, a result of quirks in the Earth's orbit which are the ultimate driver of glacial-interglacial cycling.
 
2013-02-10 12:43:18 PM
Remember guys - global warming causes cold weather and snow.

/this is what liberals actually believe
 
2013-02-10 12:47:17 PM

Stone Meadow: Look carefully at the graph. Temperature climbs precede CO2 rise in each case, which occurs as warmer conditions release otherwise trapped gasses into the atmosphere. Then, as earth entered the next glacial period (Ice Age) CO2 is pulled out of the atmosphere in ice, the oceans, frozen taiga and permafrost, etc. IOW, factors other than greenhouse gases caused the climate to warm and cool, and drove the level of CO2 in the air...NOT the other way round, as you claim.


Interesting... do you know what those "other factors" that you refer to for driving glacial-interglacial cycles? Do you know how strong they are?

The primary driver of glacial-interglacial cycling are wobbles in Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles. They cause changes to the amount of insolation (solar radiation hitting the surface), depending on latitude and season. However, the magnitude of those insolation changes alone are insufficient to account for the observed temperature change. However, the insolation changes cause feedbacks in the carbon cycle that change the amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which enhances the warming.

So, the "lag" between the initial warming and CO2 concentration is due to the inherent rate of coupling between Milankovitch forcing and the greenhouse gas feedback.

Also "runaway greenhouses" are impossible at present on Earth, because there are feedbacks with the atmosphere, biosphere and rock weathering cycles that serve to limit the space within which the climate system can change.
 
2013-02-10 12:47:22 PM

Stone Meadow: Wolf_Blitzer: The primary control on Earth's climate over geological time scales is the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is up 40% from pre-industrial levels and increasing rapidly, an effect that can be directly traced to fossil fuel burning due to the change in isotopic composition of the CO2. If you are incapable of accepting these facts you are willfully anti-science and anti-reality.

Bwahahahahahahahaha...bullshiat!

Take a look at this ice core CO2 graph from the past half million years...

[www.daviesand.com image 750x380]
If greenhouse gasses were driving temperature, the earth would have gone into runaway greenhouse conditions at least four times in the past half million years. Clearly, that didn't happen, so what DID happen?

Look carefully at the graph. Temperature climbs precede CO2 rise in each case, which occurs as warmer conditions release otherwise trapped gasses into the atmosphere. Then, as earth entered the next glacial period (Ice Age) CO2 is pulled out of the atmosphere in ice, the oceans, frozen taiga and permafrost, etc. IOW, factors other than greenhouse gases caused the climate to warm and cool, and drove the level of CO2 in the air...NOT the other way round, as you claim.

Greenhouses certainly impact climate, and no doubt are contributing something to current conditions, but your claim is blatantly false.


I read that chart quite differently.

The 4 blue peaks do appear quite cyclical and we had been approaching another 5th temperature peak before the industrial revolution kicked off.
But none of the other 4 peaks is "Also" associated with a severe increase in atmospheric CO2 as the current approaching peak clearly is.

And this is what drives the doomsayers, we've known of the heat trapping characteristics of CO2 and CH4 for 120 years or so. It's well established science. And now we (the human race) seem to have amplified the normal cyclical peak with a huge and world wide boost of heat trapping CO2 for the past 160 years or so.
 
2013-02-10 12:48:59 PM
Sounds like subby got almost as many inches as subby's mom last night.
 
2013-02-10 12:52:58 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: omeganuepsilon: lol

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science (publishers of <i>Science</i>, one of the two most-respected scientific journals in the world):

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.


Whatever, play equivocation fallacy all you want, you were still wrong originally.  You took two words used very colloquially/informally and said they were not synonyms, when indeed they were.  Specifying a more formal lexicon  after the fact does not change that, and really is nothing but a desperate backpedal.
 
2013-02-10 12:53:03 PM
Humans are bad.  Some humans, like George Bush and Dick Cheney, are super bad.  A few, like Obama, are good, but the rest are really bad.  And humans caused global warming, and global warming has caused every bad thing that has happened since Al Gore invented it, except for stuff caused by George Bush and Dick Cheney.

/do I have that right?
 
2013-02-10 12:53:28 PM
Less precipitation (last year's droughts) = evidence of man-caused climate change
More precipitation (Sandy) = evidence of man-caused climate change

I happen to believe that our CO2 output does impact the climate long-term, but the supposition above that is regularly put forth by the media hurts awareness efforts.
 
2013-02-10 12:55:35 PM

Cheron: Warming causes melt, melt increases water, increased water increases rain and snow, increased snow doesn't melt in summer causing glaciers, glaciers grow moving from the poles toward the equator in the latest ice age.


So Global Warming causes colder weather. BRILLIANT! Cannot be dis-proven. There's a word for that, but I forget. Something something......
 
2013-02-10 12:59:38 PM

omeganuepsilon: Wolf_Blitzer: omeganuepsilon: lol

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science (publishers of <i>Science</i>, one of the two most-respected scientific journals in the world):

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Whatever, play equivocation fallacy all you want, you were still wrong originally.  You took two words used very colloquially/informally and said they were not synonyms, when indeed they were.  Specifying a more formal lexicon  after the fact does not change that, and really is nothing but a desperate backpedal.


Here is my post:

You don't know what a scientist means when he calls something "theory", do you? Here's a hint: its not a synonym for "guess".

I specified the scientific context in the very post you so brilliantly destroyed, not "after the fact". Try harder next time.
 
2013-02-10 01:00:31 PM

beta_plus: Remember guys - global warming causes cold weather and snow.

/this is what liberals actually believe


If the temperature goes up, there will be more moisture in the air.

If it's 30 degrees below freezing, and the temperature goes up 5 degrees, there will be more moisture in the air, yet it will still be 25 degrees below freezing. Therefore, more snow.

Farking science, how does it work?
 
2013-02-10 01:09:21 PM

beta_plus: Remember guys - global warming causes cold weather and snow.

/this is what liberals actually believe



Remember guys - magnets can both push and pull other magnets.

/this is what Insane Clown Posse can't understand
 
2013-02-10 01:09:54 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Stone Meadow: Look carefully at the graph. Temperature climbs precede CO2 rise in each case, which occurs as warmer conditions release otherwise trapped gasses into the atmosphere. Then, as earth entered the next glacial period (Ice Age) CO2 is pulled out of the atmosphere in ice, the oceans, frozen taiga and permafrost, etc. IOW, factors other than greenhouse gases caused the climate to warm and cool, and drove the level of CO2 in the air...NOT the other way round, as you claim.

Interesting... do you know what those "other factors" that you refer to for driving glacial-interglacial cycles? Do you know how strong they are?

The primary driver of glacial-interglacial cycling are wobbles in Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles. They cause changes to the amount of insolation (solar radiation hitting the surface), depending on latitude and season. However, the magnitude of those insolation changes alone are insufficient to account for the observed temperature change. However, the insolation changes cause feedbacks in the carbon cycle that change the amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which enhances the warming.

So, the "lag" between the initial warming and CO2 concentration is due to the inherent rate of coupling between Milankovitch forcing and the greenhouse gas feedback.

Also "runaway greenhouses" are impossible at present on Earth, because there are feedbacks with the atmosphere, biosphere and rock weathering cycles that serve to limit the space within which the climate system can change.


Thank you for proving my point, which was that your claim that "The primary control on Earth's climate over geological time scales is the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases." is utter bullshiat. You can't have it both ways. As you note, greenhouse gasses influence and moderate climate, but they neither control nor drive climate change over geological time scales. And you know it.
 
2013-02-10 01:11:40 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Cheron: Warming causes melt, melt increases water, increased water increases rain and snow, increased snow doesn't melt in summer causing glaciers, glaciers grow moving from the poles toward the equator in the latest ice age.

So Global Warming causes colder weather. BRILLIANT! Cannot be dis-proven. There's a word for that, but I forget. Something something......


Looks like a lot of people here didn't get the memo, even the people funding the artificial climate controversy have officially surrendered.

"Climate change is a hoax" is no more a legitimate point of view than "the earth is 4 thousand years old."  No one entitled to their own, friendlier version of objective reality.  Anyone who chooses to make climate change a battleground in the culture war is only solidifying their own irrelevance.
 
2013-02-10 01:13:39 PM

vestona22: [i1275.photobucket.com image 750x600]


Yep. That's the message I continuously get from the FECCers (Fark Expertson Climate Change). Which is really amazing, when you think about it, because it's apparent from their posts on other subjects that they rarely get out of their Mom's basements.

Oh yeah: hilarious http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM
 
2013-02-10 01:14:05 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: I specified


No, you did not.

"what a scientist means" is not specification on a formal level, a hint in that direction maybe, but it's still very colloquial usage of all terms involved.  What you should have done, is maybe find a definition or state an actually "specific" technical usage instead of trying to sum it up in your own limited colloquial way, before being called on it.

And you know, maybe not being an pompous asshole about it.  That'd be a vast improvement for your cause.  Then again, I don't feel many alarmists actually care, they just want to be correct, and loudly so when it comes to contrary opinions, to stroke your own ego.  I mean, look how much you flipped out when I called you out on being factually wrong.

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-10 01:18:02 PM

Stone Meadow: Thank you for proving my point, which was that your claim that "The primary control on Earth's climate over geological time scales is the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases." is utter bullshiat. You can't have it both ways. As you note, greenhouse gasses influence and moderate climate, but they neither control nor drive climate change over geological time scales. And you know it.


Glacial-interglacial cycles, on the order of tens to hundreds of thousands of years, are extremely short compared to the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth. On timespans of millions to tens of millions of years, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is controlled by rates of volcanism (volcanic gases contain large amounts of CO2), and sea level (weathering of rocks removes CO2 from the atmosphere, more land exposed = more CO2 removed from the atmosphere.

The reason we currently have glacial-interglacial cycles is that geological processes (mostly reduction of greenhouse gases, but also continental configuration) cooled the planet to the point that Milankovitch cycles could produce fluctuations in continental ice cover. At higher levels of CO2, orbital changes don't produce glaciation, which is something we see in the older geologic records, when the planet was warmer.
 
2013-02-10 01:19:30 PM

omeganuepsilon: Wolf_Blitzer: I specified

No, you did not.

"what a scientist means" is not specification on a formal level, a hint in that direction maybe, but it's still very colloquial usage of all terms involved.  What you should have done, is maybe find a definition or state an actually "specific" technical usage instead of trying to sum it up in your own limited colloquial way, before being called on it.

And you know, maybe not being an pompous asshole about it.  That'd be a vast improvement for your cause.  Then again, I don't feel many alarmists actually care, they just want to be correct, and loudly so when it comes to contrary opinions, to stroke your own ego.  I mean, look how much you flipped out when I called you out on being factually wrong.

[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 255x197]


i131.photobucket.com

I am only saying that because I care - there's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing.
 
2013-02-10 01:22:15 PM
Perhaps it's a function of being older, but not to the point of losing my memory.

The difference between winters 30 years ago and now, if memory serves, is that we used to have a proper snow-thumping like this every year in Ontario, Quebec and the U.S. Northeast. It was a "bad year" if we got it twice, or God forbid, three times. But it wasn't unusual: it was winter.

Now, four or five years pass, seemingly, between proper thumpings. Last year, I think I shovelled twice, and I probably could've used a broom. Lakes Michigan and Huron (essentially the same thyroid-shaped body of water) are now at historic lows, not only because less snow and rain is falling to "recharge" the lakes, not only because your Engineers dug a trench in Lake St. Clair for the benefit of shipping that is allowing too much drainage (Lakes Erie and Ontario are only six inches down from average).

It's also because the lakes are evaporating year round. Ice is failing to form (and in my lifetime, used to completely ice over, shore to shore, on Huron) due to higher winter temps. That means it can evaporate, like a pot with no lid loses volume as vapour. That vapour, carried by winds and carried up, gets turned into snow, which gets dropped south and east, generally, of Lakes Michigan and Huron, which are now down several feet from just 25 years ago.

www.johndee.com

A more perfect and evident feedback loop is hard to imagine. It doesn't matter so much if people are causing it, although there is plenty to suggest we have had a big role to play.

It's happening. We must deal with it, or at least stop the circle-jerk of whining about it.
 
2013-02-10 01:23:33 PM

TheOther: here to help: The eggheads and propagandists are doing pretty well.

From whom, exactly, do you get your world view?


Ummmm..... you're being trolled.
 
2013-02-10 01:26:07 PM
HighZoolander:

/this is what Insane Clown Posse can't understand

A list comprised of what ICP can't understand looks like the number 8 lying down.
 
2013-02-10 01:27:57 PM

udhq: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Cheron: Warming causes melt, melt increases water, increased water increases rain and snow, increased snow doesn't melt in summer causing glaciers, glaciers grow moving from the poles toward the equator in the latest ice age.

So Global Warming causes colder weather. BRILLIANT! Cannot be dis-proven. There's a word for that, but I forget. Something something......

Looks like a lot of people here didn't get the memo, even the people funding the artificial climate controversy have officially surrendered.

"Climate change is a hoax" is no more a legitimate point of view than "the earth is 4 thousand years old."  No one entitled to their own, friendlier version of objective reality.  Anyone who chooses to make climate change a battleground in the culture war is only solidifying their own irrelevance.


LOL! So "the science is in"? LOL!

Climate change is obviously NOT a hoax - and I have NEVER said that it was. You're busily erecting a straw man. What I've always said is that climate change has always existed - and that it is not something that we need to panic over and pass totalitarian legislation over.
 
2013-02-10 01:31:21 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: vestona22: [i1275.photobucket.com image 750x600]

Yep. That's the message I continuously get from the FECCers (Fark Expertson Climate Change). Which is really amazing, when you think about it, because it's apparent from their posts on other subjects that they rarely get out of their Mom's basements.

Oh yeah: hilarious http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM


Those who disbelieve reality typically misinterpret the statements of those trying to inform them - I think it's related to Dunning-Kruger.
 
2013-02-10 01:31:22 PM
This is pretty significant:

Notably, for 2012 as a whole, the had its warmest year in its 118-year period of record, surpassing the previous record set in 1998 by 0.6°C (1.0°F).

During a La Nina year as well. And that's one heck of an anomaly - a whole degree Fahrenheit. March was insane in the midwest, temps in the 80s.
 
2013-02-10 01:32:01 PM
That quote was for North America, sorry.
 
2013-02-10 01:35:02 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Climate change is obviously NOT a hoax - and I have NEVER said that it was. You're busily erecting a straw man. What I've always said is that climate change has always existed - and that it is not something that we need to panic over and pass totalitarian legislation over.


"Climate change" has indeed always existed in the history of the Earth. However, Earth climate has been extraordinarly stable over the ten thousand year duration of the Holocene Interglacial, a fact to which many scientists directly attribute the growth of agriculture and advanced civilization (humans existed as highly mobile hunter-gatherer bands during the hundreds of thousands of glacial-interglacial cycles that occured during our existence prior to the Holocene).

Natural, global climate change occurs at a pace that renders it effectively irrelevant to human civilization. It is only the pace and magnitude of current anthropogenic greenhouse-driven warming that turns it into a subject worthy of major concern.
 
2013-02-10 01:39:54 PM
Still shoveling?  As soon as I moved to Ohio I bought a Climate Thrower.  Aint nobody got time for shoveling climate.
 
2013-02-10 01:41:08 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: udhq: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Cheron: Warming causes melt, melt increases water, increased water increases rain and snow, increased snow doesn't melt in summer causing glaciers, glaciers grow moving from the poles toward the equator in the latest ice age.

So Global Warming causes colder weather. BRILLIANT! Cannot be dis-proven. There's a word for that, but I forget. Something something......

Looks like a lot of people here didn't get the memo, even the people funding the artificial climate controversy have officially surrendered.

"Climate change is a hoax" is no more a legitimate point of view than "the earth is 4 thousand years old."  No one entitled to their own, friendlier version of objective reality.  Anyone who chooses to make climate change a battleground in the culture war is only solidifying their own irrelevance.

LOL! So "the science is in"? LOL!

Climate change is obviously NOT a hoax - and I have NEVER said that it was. You're busily erecting a straw man. What I've always said is that climate change has always existed - and that it is not something that we need to panic over and pass totalitarian legislation over.


You're right, we don't need to pass totalitarian legislation, but we do need to recognize that the atmosphere is by very definition a space that is public in nature, and I don't have any more of a right to dump my waste into it than I have a right to dump my trash in public parks.
 
2013-02-10 01:44:47 PM
Missed a word in that last post, should have been "hundreds of thousands of years of glacial-interglacial cycles." There have been 11 major glacial cycles during the past 2.6 million years.
 
2013-02-10 01:45:52 PM
As we all know, science has NEVER been wrong. Ever. No one has ever manipulated data. No scientist has ever lied.
 
2013-02-10 01:47:34 PM
Are there "natural cycles"?  Yes.
Do we make them worse?  Yes.
Does not addressing that put us in danger?  Yes.


So what is so farking confusing here?
 
2013-02-10 01:48:16 PM

udhq: I don't have any more of a right to dump my waste into it


Then stop breathing, become part of the solution.
 
2013-02-10 01:49:11 PM

lordjupiter: Are there "natural cycles"?  Yes.
Do we make them worse?  Yes.
Does not addressing that put us in danger?  Yes.


So what is so farking confusing here?


Because you can't prove your 3rd point.
 
2013-02-10 01:51:33 PM
The same ol' same ol' here.

I wish you non-scientist "skeptic" assholes would argue about cigarettes causing cancer or something. I MEAN PEOPLE HAVE DIED OF CANCER FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE THERE WERE CIGARETTES DURR HURR IT'S NATURAL DURR BLURR MY UNCLE SMOKED SEVENTEEN PACKS OF CAMELS A DAY AND LIVED TO BE A HUNDRED EIGHTEEN YEARS OLD HURBLE BURBLE I KNOW THIS ONE SCIENTIST WHO LIED SO ALL SCIENTISTS ARE LYING DOUCHBAGS THE INSANE CLOWN POSSE IS VERY INSIGHTFUL ON THIS ISSUE.
 
2013-02-10 01:51:38 PM

lordjupiter: Does not addressing that put us in danger?  Yes.


Fear of danger.

It amounts to fear of change.

We're strong, we'll survive, as a species.  Climate change will happen, nothing we can do will change that.

Pressure to change to adapt now tends to be more healthy than putting off the inevitable and becoming complacent.

Necessity drives invention, not so much our present fictional utopia.
 
2013-02-10 01:54:01 PM

radiovox: As we all know, science has NEVER been wrong. Ever. No one has ever manipulated data. No scientist has ever lied.


So, you're taking the position that tens of thousands of scientists are lying?



www.slate.com
 
2013-02-10 01:54:51 PM
farm1.staticflickr.com
 
2013-02-10 02:32:04 PM

germ78: Is this one of those "It snowed so global warming is a lie" threads? Or did those folks finally notice that the increased energy content of the atmosphere has fueled some crazy strong storms in the past few years?


Yeah, storms are a new thing.
 
2013-02-10 02:33:46 PM

Jack_Knopf: germ78: Is this one of those "It snowed so global warming is a lie" threads? Or did those folks finally notice that the increased energy content of the atmosphere has fueled some crazy strong storms in the past few years?

Yeah, storms are a new thing.


So-called "30 year storms" in each if the last 5 years is a new thing.
 
2013-02-10 02:38:00 PM

HighZoolander: radiovox: As we all know, science has NEVER been wrong. Ever. No one has ever manipulated data. No scientist has ever lied.

So, you're taking the position that tens of thousands of scientists are lying?


Oh wow...people wonder why there are skeptics. It's because people throw around asshat charts like that.
 
2013-02-10 02:39:00 PM

udhq: Jack_Knopf: germ78: Is this one of those "It snowed so global warming is a lie" threads? Or did those folks finally notice that the increased energy content of the atmosphere has fueled some crazy strong storms in the past few years?

Yeah, storms are a new thing.

So-called "30 year storms" in each if the last 5 years is a new thing.


Where's my citation needed jpg?
 
2013-02-10 02:40:28 PM

Jack_Knopf: HighZoolander: radiovox: As we all know, science has NEVER been wrong. Ever. No one has ever manipulated data. No scientist has ever lied.

So, you're taking the position that tens of thousands of scientists are lying?

Oh wow...people wonder why there are skeptics. It's because people throw around asshat charts like that.


Because you don't like reality?
 
2013-02-10 02:44:23 PM

here to help: X-boxershorts: here to help: How many Americans have lost their jobs over these failing policies? How much taxpayer money wasted?

Do go on, I hope for clear spcifics

Why don't you ask some coal miners what they think?


Why don't we ask you?  You're the one making the claim: how many coal miners lost their jobs because of "global warming" policies?

here to help:  I have more degrees than a thermometer. Where do YOU get your facts?

And all those climate "scientists" collectively hold a single associate's degree from Waubonsee Community College, amirite?

Of all the arguments denying global warming, probably the dumbest, most numerically illiterate argument is to cite how many degrees you have---as if you can somehow out-degree the scientific consensus.   It's like arguing that you're taller than a skyscraper because you're standing on not one, but three orange crates.

Nevermind the idiocy of stating the number of your degrees rather than what they are---or worse, simply saying you have a lot of them without specifying.  Are you talking about a degree in geology, or physics, or some piffle like social work or computer programming?
 
2013-02-10 02:44:29 PM

GORDON: Aint nobody got time for shoveling climate.


i.imgur.com

fixed
 
2013-02-10 02:47:05 PM

HighlanderRPI: Fark the Grandkids, I'm cold NOW!

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 300x404]


FYI: That's a photoshopped cover. The original:
img.timeinc.net
 
2013-02-10 02:47:57 PM

GORDON: lordjupiter: Are there "natural cycles"?  Yes.
Do we make them worse?  Yes.
Does not addressing that put us in danger?  Yes.


So what is so farking confusing here?

Because you can't prove your 3rd point.



Well that's your opinion.  How stupid is it to NOT do something about it when we know we're making it worse?
 
2013-02-10 02:48:45 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: HighZoolander: radiovox: As we all know, science has NEVER been wrong. Ever. No one has ever manipulated data. No scientist has ever lied.

So, you're taking the position that tens of thousands of scientists are lying?

Oh wow...people wonder why there are skeptics. It's because people throw around asshat charts like that.

Because you don't like reality?


Because your belief equals fact equals reality. Good argument.
 
2013-02-10 02:53:23 PM

Xcott: Nevermind the idiocy of stating the number of your degrees rather than what they are---or worse, simply saying you have a lot of them without specifying. Are you talking about a degree in geology, or physics, or some piffle like social work or computer programming?


I have a PHD in Lulzology.
 
2013-02-10 02:54:55 PM

Clemkadidlefark: It's weather, damn you! Weather!!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x191]


It's not just confusing "weather" and "climate"---these Official Internet Scientists are also confusing "snow" with "temperature."

Hey, you eggheads said it was getting warmer, but look at all this precipitation!  It's like 5 inches colder than it was last week!  I had to shovel a cubic yard of temperature!  My car gets 30 degrees to the degree!  And why does it have 4 gauges on the dashboard---aren't they they all same thing?
 
2013-02-10 03:02:04 PM
lordjupiter:  How stupid is it to NOT do something about it when we know we're making it worse?

Are you really arguing that NOTHING is being done about human contributions to climate change? Really?
 
2013-02-10 03:02:20 PM

here to help: Xcott: Nevermind the idiocy of stating the number of your degrees rather than what they are---or worse, simply saying you have a lot of them without specifying. Are you talking about a degree in geology, or physics, or some piffle like social work or computer programming?

I have a PHD in Lulzology.


Okay, so computer programming.  Let me know when you get a degree in an academic subject.

/I mean computer "science," like political science, managerial science, social science, information science, and system science
//As opposed to physics, chemistry, biology, geology, meteorology, psychology
///Putting "science" after your major is like painting LIMO in big purple letters on a shiatty gray van
 
2013-02-10 03:16:52 PM

Jack_Knopf: cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: HighZoolander: radiovox: As we all know, science has NEVER been wrong. Ever. No one has ever manipulated data. No scientist has ever lied.

So, you're taking the position that tens of thousands of scientists are lying?

Oh wow...people wonder why there are skeptics. It's because people throw around asshat charts like that.

Because you don't like reality?

Because your belief equals fact equals reality. Good argument.


It's not my belief. It's the scientific findings of thousands of independent people around the world.
 
2013-02-10 03:22:51 PM

kevinatilusa: HighlanderRPI: Fark the Grandkids, I'm cold NOW!

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 300x404]

FYI: That's a photoshopped cover. The original:
[img.timeinc.net image 200x269]


A bad photoshop at that. That artifacting around the top was just eye-bleeding.
 
2013-02-10 03:24:36 PM

Jack_Knopf: HighZoolander: radiovox: As we all know, science has NEVER been wrong. Ever. No one has ever manipulated data. No scientist has ever lied.

So, you're taking the position that tens of thousands of scientists are lying?

Oh wow...people wonder why there are skeptics. It's because people throw around asshat charts like that.


It's called refuting an argument. Someday you'll understand how good it feels. Well, probably not.


/that's how to be an asshat, in case you missed the difference.
 
2013-02-10 03:26:12 PM
www.ncdc.noaa.gov

I just wanted to point out how these "anomalies and events" remind me of ESPN announcers.

"Carlotta was the easternmost landfalling hurricane in the south pacific since 1966."
"He's got 1.23 ERA against right-handed batters in the first inning of games for the month of June when the temperature is below 93 degrees."
 
2013-02-10 03:28:03 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: HighZoolander: radiovox: As we all know, science has NEVER been wrong. Ever. No one has ever manipulated data. No scientist has ever lied.

So, you're taking the position that tens of thousands of scientists are lying?

Oh wow...people wonder why there are skeptics. It's because people throw around asshat charts like that.

Because you don't like reality?

Because your belief equals fact equals reality. Good argument.

It's not my belief. It's the scientific findings of thousands of independent people around the world.


Pffff science. What has that ever done for anybody. I trust my own eyes over a phoney baloney scientist. It just SNOWED. DURING WINTER. Global Warming is a scam.
 
2013-02-10 03:29:13 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: HighZoolander: radiovox: As we all know, science has NEVER been wrong. Ever. No one has ever manipulated data. No scientist has ever lied.

So, you're taking the position that tens of thousands of scientists are lying?

Oh wow...people wonder why there are skeptics. It's because people throw around asshat charts like that.

Because you don't like reality?

Because your belief equals fact equals reality. Good argument.

It's not my belief. It's the scientific findings of thousands of independent people around the world.


This.

Your beliefs do not entitle you to a separate, individualized version of objective reality.

The denial of the Catholic Church had no affect on the objective reality of heliocentrism.  The reality of climate change is completely indifferent to your efforts to make it an inevitably-lost culture war battleground.
 
2013-02-10 03:41:04 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: HighZoolander: radiovox: As we all know, science has NEVER been wrong. Ever. No one has ever manipulated data. No scientist has ever lied.

So, you're taking the position that tens of thousands of scientists are lying?

Oh wow...people wonder why there are skeptics. It's because people throw around asshat charts like that.

Because you don't like reality?

Because your belief equals fact equals reality. Good argument.

It's not my belief. It's the scientific findings of thousands of independent people around the world.


Warmers have their thousands of scientists. Deniers have their thousands of scientits.
 
2013-02-10 03:42:22 PM

Jack_Knopf: cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: HighZoolander: radiovox: As we all know, science has NEVER been wrong. Ever. No one has ever manipulated data. No scientist has ever lied.

So, you're taking the position that tens of thousands of scientists are lying?

Oh wow...people wonder why there are skeptics. It's because people throw around asshat charts like that.

Because you don't like reality?

Because your belief equals fact equals reality. Good argument.

It's not my belief. It's the scientific findings of thousands of independent people around the world.

Warmers have their thousands of scientists. Deniers have their thousands of scientits.


Boobies
 
2013-02-10 03:43:23 PM

Jack_Knopf: cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: HighZoolander: radiovox: As we all know, science has NEVER been wrong. Ever. No one has ever manipulated data. No scientist has ever lied.

So, you're taking the position that tens of thousands of scientists are lying?

Oh wow...people wonder why there are skeptics. It's because people throw around asshat charts like that.

Because you don't like reality?

Because your belief equals fact equals reality. Good argument.

It's not my belief. It's the scientific findings of thousands of independent people around the world.

Warmers have their thousands of scientists. Deniers have their thousands of scientits.


Or thousands vs tens, if you can read a chart.
 
2013-02-10 03:50:24 PM

udhq: cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: HighZoolander: radiovox: As we all know, science has NEVER been wrong. Ever. No one has ever manipulated data. No scientist has ever lied.

So, you're taking the position that tens of thousands of scientists are lying?

Oh wow...people wonder why there are skeptics. It's because people throw around asshat charts like that.

Because you don't like reality?

Because your belief equals fact equals reality. Good argument.

It's not my belief. It's the scientific findings of thousands of independent people around the world.

This.

Your beliefs do not entitle you to a separate, individualized version of objective reality.

The denial of the Catholic Church had no affect on the objective reality of heliocentrism.  The reality of climate change is completely indifferent to your efforts to make it an inevitably-lost culture war battleground.


It snows. Climate change.
It rains. Climate change.
Drought. Climate change.
It gets hot. Climate change.
It cools off. Climate change.
 
2013-02-10 03:54:37 PM

udhq: cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: HighZoolander: radiovox: As we all know, science has NEVER been wrong. Ever. No one has ever manipulated data. No scientist has ever lied.

So, you're taking the position that tens of thousands of scientists are lying?

Oh wow...people wonder why there are skeptics. It's because people throw around asshat charts like that.

Because you don't like reality?

Because your belief equals fact equals reality. Good argument.

It's not my belief. It's the scientific findings of thousands of independent people around the world.

This.

Your beliefs do not entitle you to a separate, individualized version of objective reality.

The denial of the Catholic Church had no affect on the objective reality of heliocentrism.  The reality of climate change is completely indifferent to your efforts to make it an inevitably-lost culture war battleground.


A corrollary is that physics doesn't care whether you buckle up or wear a helmet. Organ recipients prefer that you don't, actually. I call it 'the Darwin surtax".
 
2013-02-10 04:02:24 PM

Jack_Knopf: cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: HighZoolander: radiovox: As we all know, science has NEVER been wrong. Ever. No one has ever manipulated data. No scientist has ever lied.

So, you're taking the position that tens of thousands of scientists are lying?

Oh wow...people wonder why there are skeptics. It's because people throw around asshat charts like that.

Because you don't like reality?

Because your belief equals fact equals reality. Good argument.

It's not my belief. It's the scientific findings of thousands of independent people around the world.

Warmers have their thousands of scientists. Deniers have their thousands of scientits.


No, no they actual don't.  You know how I know?  Because even with google at your disposal, you can't name a single scientist who has consistantly denied the conclusions of climate science without taking money from the energy industry.

Oh yeah, and stop using the word"skeptic".  It doesn't mean what you think it means.  It means someone who questions a particular conclusion because of a lack of evidence.  Your argument is not one of evidence, it's one of dogma.  You BELIEVE that climate science is a hoax, and you've already demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that no amount of evidence will come between you and this belief.
 
2013-02-10 04:04:36 PM

Jack_Knopf: udhq: cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: HighZoolander: radiovox: As we all know, science has NEVER been wrong. Ever. No one has ever manipulated data. No scientist has ever lied.

So, you're taking the position that tens of thousands of scientists are lying?

Oh wow...people wonder why there are skeptics. It's because people throw around asshat charts like that.

Because you don't like reality?

Because your belief equals fact equals reality. Good argument.

It's not my belief. It's the scientific findings of thousands of independent people around the world.

This.

Your beliefs do not entitle you to a separate, individualized version of objective reality.

The denial of the Catholic Church had no affect on the objective reality of heliocentrism.  The reality of climate change is completely indifferent to your efforts to make it an inevitably-lost culture war battleground.

It snows. Climate change.
It rains. Climate change.
Drought. Climate change.
It gets hot. Climate change.
It cools off. Climate change.


Don't blame anybody but yourself for the fact that you don't understand--and don't want to understand--how statistical deviation works.
 
2013-02-10 04:27:28 PM

udhq: you can't name a single scientist who has consistantly denied the conclusions of climate science without taking money from the energy industry.


And that's where you departed from any rational argument and sound like a conspiracy nut.  You know the finances of all these people?  You have some citation?
 
2013-02-10 05:03:03 PM

omeganuepsilon: udhq: you can't name a single scientist who has consistently denied the conclusions of climate science without taking money from the energy industry.

And that's where you departed from any rational argument and sound like a conspiracy nut.  You know the finances of all these people?  You have some citation?


So you trust the climate "research" put out by the energy industry moreso than that done by independent and academic sources?

Let me guess, you're still looking for one of those 4-out-of-5 doctors who recommend lucky strikes,?
 
2013-02-10 05:04:10 PM

omeganuepsilon: udhq: you can't name a single scientist who has consistantly denied the conclusions of climate science without taking money from the energy industry.

And that's where you departed from any rational argument and sound like a conspiracy nut.


I have to agree here.  Every respected scientist gets research grants either from industry or from the government, and many have a job history that includes working for industry or government.  It's too easy for someone to misinterpret that money as some sort of evil influence, and in so doing dismiss pretty much any scientist for any reason.

You can even dismiss scientists who don't receive any funding, just by asking out loud "I wonder where this guy gets his funding" as an unspecified allegation.  Once I saw a dude on Daily Kos "expose" a scientist by (1) typing his name into Google, (2) following the first link to a conference web site, and (3) discovering that one conference track had (4) a PC member who (5) worked for industry.  IIRC the scientist under attack had nothing to do with the conference---there was just someone else who presented a paper there with the same last name.

Also, the deniers are often skeptical of government for the same reason some hippies are skeptical of Exxon Mobil.  If it's a legitimate argument to dismiss a scientist who gets some funding from Exxon Mobil, then deniers will use that to dismiss anyone who gets funding from "Obama's" DoE.

You can't really settle an issue like climate change by counting scientists (deniers create inflated lists of "scientists," like the Global Warming Petition Project) or by tying credibility to funding sources.  What you must do instead is observe the consensus in the form of publications based on published evidence.  This clearly shows a consensus for human-induced climate change, regardless of who took money from what industry.
 
2013-02-10 05:08:39 PM
In another of these threads, someone made this analogy, which I think was quite good. As you get older, you get more aches and pains. You can tell yourself that the sore shoulder is just from lifting something heavy, and could have just as easily happened to you when you were in your twenties. And it's true, you still had aches and pains when you were young. But there comes a time when the denial gets a bit ridiculous. You may not want to believe that your body is deteriorating as you get older, but it doesn't really matter if you believe it or not - it will still happen.

Weather anomalies have always happened, but there comes a point where, combined with the evidence of ever increasing CO2, other greenhouse gases, and long term temperature trends, that to continue to deny it gets ridiculous. No matter how overwhelming the evidence is, some people will never accept it. No reasonable person doubts the theory of evolution, but plenty of unreasonable people sure do.
 
2013-02-10 05:47:26 PM

udhq: So you trust the climate "research" put out by the energy industry moreso than that done by independent and academic sources?


Did I say that?

This whole trend on Fark to fabricate the argument that you want to argue against instead of the points present gets tiresome indeed.

Something similar to the classic fallacy of Appeal to Spite, in combination with causation vs correlation..

Just because you argue X(on the grander support of Y), and I scrutinize X, does not mean that I also have problems with Y(and am therefore discreditable...in your imagination).

I have openly acknowledged global warming, I'm just not an alarmist, fyi.  You may have caught that if you'd actually read the thread, seriously, 141 posts is not a long thread.  Take your adderal Skippy, and try reading and comprehending what is present, and then argue with that.
 
2013-02-10 05:48:03 PM

Repo Man: In another of these threads, someone made this analogy, which I think was quite good. As you get older, you get more aches and pains. You can tell yourself that the sore shoulder is just from lifting something heavy, and could have just as easily happened to you when you were in your twenties. And it's true, you still had aches and pains when you were young. But there comes a time when the denial gets a bit ridiculous. You may not want to believe that your body is deteriorating as you get older, but it doesn't really matter if you believe it or not - it will still happen.

Weather anomalies have always happened, but there comes a point where, combined with the evidence of ever increasing CO2, other greenhouse gases, and long term temperature trends, that to continue to deny it gets ridiculous. No matter how overwhelming the evidence is, some people will never accept it. No reasonable person doubts the theory of evolution, but plenty of unreasonable people sure do.


OK, fair enough, but let's not confuse "skeptic" and "deniers", which is akin to confusing "believers" and "fundamentalists". (Of course, it's a Venn diagram, but still...).

I am a climate skeptic. I do understand that historically rapid changes in climate are and continue to happen. I am skeptical about the causes, and suspect that natural cycles (such as sunspots and Earth's orbital changes) are combining with the ongoing volcano of fossil fuel and ozone-eating chemicals our glorious civilization is constantly flinging skyward.

I hesitate to characterize this as a "warming" or "cooling" trend, however, as I think there are arguments in favour of "global dimming" which could moderate or even reverse a warming trend based solely  on CO2 and other "greenhouse gas emissions".

I'm therefore skeptical of blanket statements...particularly thermal blanket statements...that we are on a handcart heading for a specific Hell of the fiery variety. If, for whatever as yet poorly understood reason the Gulf Stream halted, Northwest Europe would look like Baffin Island pretty quickly, although it might take a thousand years for glaciers to march southward.

We simply do not yet know where the pendulum is swinging, or what it might hit on the way. But only a very dogmatic individual indeed would see the pendulum as being stock-still, and would get into their Canyonero and drive off into the increasingly hazy sunset.
 
2013-02-10 05:59:14 PM

Repo Man: long term temperature trends, that to continue to deny it gets ridiculous.


Putting it in those words made me wonder...  The "trend" is not an actual temperature, but highly processed averages of temperatures, using imagination where there is laking information.(IE a "global" temperature "average" is not attainable in an ice core, cores are only available on certain parts of the globe)

What I wonder about, is if you would actually see a "trend" if you took not a questionable average, but picked a place, measured it's actual temperature every july 4th. You could do this for any given date, or multiple dates within the same year(only for comparison with eachother, IE all the summer dates from each year, and all the spring dates from each year, etc) Sure, if it's cloudy/rainy on the 4th take the nearest typical hot day.

Iron out the process(which is just off the top of my head mind you), and then apply it to multiple points across the globe.  This way you're dealing with actual information, nor averages and estimations.

Of course, I'm not curious enough to actually look into doing such a thing, but it's an interesting thought.
 
2013-02-10 06:02:54 PM

Funny thing being we actually *have* a proven mechanism to reduce carbon output that works via libertarian-happy principles.


It's called Cap and Trade, and while that term has been "Frank Luntz'ed" to death it's been shown to work. Indeed, it was first proposed by a Reagan appointee and signed in to law by George H.W. Bush, and even G.W. Bush's EPA said it was the most cost-effective environmental initiative ever.

Cap and trade deals with pollutants we can't avoid. If you want to burn coal or petroleum you WILL produce nitrous oxides. The C&T program rewards corporations / people who deal with it, and punishes those that don't. Pretty much exactly what the invisible hand of the free market is supposed to do.

But if you bring up C&T in reference to CO2, the wharrgarbl starts.Certain coin-operated "think tanks" ramp up the propaganda just as they did when NO cap and trade was first proposed.

I'm looking at you, Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute.

 
2013-02-10 06:04:03 PM
 

ModernLuddite: I can attest to Canada having the warmest summer ever. Edmonton farking sucked last summer. I hope it's not that bad this year.

And of course, the rolling blackouts from all the air conditioners running didn't help either. And the constant rain at the end of it, causing the south side to flood. Jesus.

     
Wow, Sherwood Park was fairly mild last summer. I don' t remember it once going above 30c. We must be in an entirely different weather zone than you being a whole 2 minutes east by car. Here I thought I left Edmonton to get away from the gun toting Somalis and drunken, overweight and yet panhandling, idle no more indians on every street corner when it was actually the weather

 Of course now I have to deal with the douche bag RCMP coonts who signed up just so they can beat people who can't defend themselves, kinda like bouncers with guns and no accountability. Makes me miss Edmonton where the cops actually have work to do. I wish someone would shoot a few of these corrupt jerkoffs and reinstill my faith in karma.
 
2013-02-10 06:05:22 PM

omeganuepsilon: udhq: So you trust the climate "research" put out by the energy industry moreso than that done by independent and academic sources?

Did I say that?

This whole trend on Fark to fabricate the argument that you want to argue against instead of the points present gets tiresome indeed.

Something similar to the classic fallacy of Appeal to Spite, in combination with causation vs correlation..

Just because you argue X(on the grander support of Y), and I scrutinize X, does not mean that I also have problems with Y(and am therefore discreditable...in your imagination).

I have openly acknowledged global warming, I'm just not an alarmist, fyi.  You may have caught that if you'd actually read the thread, seriously, 141 posts is not a long thread.  Take your adderal Skippy, and try reading and comprehending what is present, and then argue with that.


Yes, this trend is almost as tiresome as the trend of responding to arguments with the phrase "I didn't actually say that", when what you mean is "I technically didn't say anything at all because I don't want to have to defend the indefensible things that I believe."

And yes, possibly the only position any more stupid and indefensible than the denial of climate science is to say you accept it's conclusions but oppose acting against them.
 
2013-02-10 06:05:54 PM

omeganuepsilon: Repo Man: long term temperature trends, that to continue to deny it gets ridiculous.

Putting it in those words made me wonder...  The "trend" is not an actual temperature, but highly processed averages of temperatures, using imagination where there is laking information.(IE a "global" temperature "average" is not attainable in an ice core, cores are only available on certain parts of the globe)

What I wonder about, is if you would actually see a "trend" if you took not a questionable average, but picked a place, measured it's actual temperature every july 4th. You could do this for any given date, or multiple dates within the same year(only for comparison with eachother, IE all the summer dates from each year, and all the spring dates from each year, etc) Sure, if it's cloudy/rainy on the 4th take the nearest typical hot day.

Iron out the process(which is just off the top of my head mind you), and then apply it to multiple points across the globe.  This way you're dealing with actual information, nor averages and estimations.

Of course, I'm not curious enough to actually look into doing such a thing, but it's an interesting thought.


It may only be interesting if you think that averages and estimations are not actual information, which is one of the weirder thoughts I've ever seen posted on fark.
 
2013-02-10 06:20:39 PM

udhq: And yes, possibly the only position any more stupid and indefensible than the denial of climate science is to say you accept it's conclusions but oppose acting against them.


Stupid and indefensible?

You are a riot.  Some people just want to watch the world burn, some want pizza for dinner, some want masturbate furiously, and some poingniantly seek out disruption and arguments to stroke their own ego...

Opinions and desires are not something that should need to be rationalized nor defended.  They just are.

Pretending knowledge, such as your translation of "I didn't say that", as if you KNOW, factually what I am actually thinking, is more dubious however, a likely indicator of delusion, at the very least indicitative of ignorance born of critically low intelligence.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, sparky.
 
2013-02-10 06:29:10 PM
omeganuepsilon:

udhq: And yes, possibly the only position any more stupid and indefensible than the denial of climate science is to say you accept it's conclusions but oppose acting against them.

Stupid and indefensible?

You are a riot. Some people just want to watch the world burn, some want pizza for dinner, some want masturbate furiously, and some poingniantly seek out disruption and arguments to stroke their own ego...

Opinions and desires are not something that should need to be rationalized nor defended. They just are.

Pretending knowledge, such as your translation of "I didn't say that", as if you KNOW, factually what I am actually thinking, is more dubious however, a likely indicator of delusion, at the very least indicitative of ignorance born of critically low intelligence.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, sparky.


And sometimes an indefensible opinion is... an indefensible opinion. Saying "I think all Jews should be burned in ovens just because they're jews." is the sort of thing that you'd REALLY have to back up if you were to defend it. On a less (ahem) inflammatory level, saying that the bulk of scientists who actually study the problem are all socialist/communist/co-conspiracsts... well..
 
2013-02-10 06:43:40 PM

omeganuepsilon: udhq: And yes, possibly the only position any more stupid and indefensible than the denial of climate science is to say you accept it's conclusions but oppose acting against them.

Stupid and indefensible?

You are a riot.  Some people just want to watch the world burn, some want pizza for dinner, some want masturbate furiously, and some poingniantly seek out disruption and arguments to stroke their own ego...

Opinions and desires are not something that should need to be rationalized nor defended.  They just are.

Pretending knowledge, such as your translation of "I didn't say that", as if you KNOW, factually what I am actually thinking, is more dubious however, a likely indicator of delusion, at the very least indicitative of ignorance born of critically low intelligence.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, sparky.


Color me shocked that you managed to get through another post without taking any sort of a position on anything.  My first thought was "He must be an attorney," but then I realized that there is no evidence of 7 years of secondary education in any of your posts.

On a completely unrelated note, one of the greatest pleasures I have on fark is when I see a highlighted post with the note "douchebag" from someone I don't know, and it totally fits.
 
2013-02-10 06:57:36 PM
Ah, climate change denialists.  They employ such brilliant logic.

"I just looked at my genitals and I have no sores, so I must not have herpes after all!"

"Sure, 99% of doctors tell me I shouldn't eat three dozen fried eggs for breakfast, but I found one doctor who told me that's A-OK!"

"The science is still in progress.  We just haven't had enough time to verify whether or not Bigfoot exists.  We need to keep looking in spite of the fact that we have no evidence."
 
2013-02-10 07:00:34 PM

maxheck: And sometimes an indefensible opinion is... an indefensible opinion. Saying "I think all Jews should be burned in ovens just because they're jews." is the sort of thing that you'd REALLY have to back up if you were to defend it.


You have an interesting private definition of "opinion"...

What you think should be done to the jews, is not an opinion, per say, because it implies actual reason(flawed cold or evil, but still reason), not personal opinion.

I think all violent criminals should be locked up because they're violent criminals.  A valid statement of reason, violent people are dangerous and should be kept from ordinary peacable citizens.

Your statement about Jews implies there are things about Jews that are common knowledge the same as my example about violent criminals.  It is not specificially present, but implied as understood knowledge.

Opinions are a different beast altogether.  Neither right or wrong, simply personal preference.

I like to look at women.  That is my preference.

maxheck: On a less (ahem) inflammatory level, saying that the bulk of scientists who actually study the problem are all socialist/communist/co-conspiracsts... well..


Less inflammatory, but plainly wrong.  Reduction to Absurdity as a fallacy.  That is not what I'm saying at all, not even implying it.  Some could be that way, some could more simply be wrong, some could even more simply be lazy and follow the same faulty reasonings of others, some could really just be paid off.  It could be, as a whole, science is going about analyzing data the wrong way.

All of these things are known to happen, Autism from Vaccines, the world is flat, Greenpeace followers that drive SUV's without a single care for the environment, but are against big business, etc etc etc.(Interestingly enough, Penn & Teller had a bunch of such supposed tree-huggers convinced di-hydrogen monoxide was a dangerous chemical and got them to sign a petition to ban it)

Also, the amount of people, or ratio of them, that agree with a given thing do not necessarily agree that the thing is correct.  That is known as
Argumentum ad populum, aka:  appeal to the masses,appeal to belief,appeal to the majority,appeal to democracy,argument by consensus,consensus fallacy,authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy

Reality is not a democracy.
 
2013-02-10 07:00:56 PM

DarwiOdrade: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: vestona22: [i1275.photobucket.com image 750x600]

Yep. That's the message I continuously get from the FECCers (Fark Expertson Climate Change). Which is really amazing, when you think about it, because it's apparent from their posts on other subjects that they rarely get out of their Mom's basements.

Oh yeah: hilarious http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM

Those who disbelieve reality typically misinterpret the statements of those trying to inform them - I think it's related to Dunning-Kruger.


LOL! So that means that all the GW fanatics are incompetent?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect Although the Dunning-Kruger effect was put forward in 1999, Dunning and Kruger quoted [3] and [4] as authors who have recognised the phenomenon. Geraint Fuller, commenting on the paper, notes that ("The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." (V.i)).[5] Scholars such as James Patrick Holding note that the principle is much older even than that, being reflected in early biblical writings such as Proverbs 12:15, which states: "The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice."[6]

I'm a GW skeptic (and a skeptic in general), so I guess that means I'm more competent than those religiou nuts who are absolutely, positively sure that GW is real?
 
2013-02-10 07:02:58 PM

udhq: Color me shocked that you managed to get through another post without taking any sort of a position on anything.


Color me shocked that you simply don't read and comprehend very well.
 
2013-02-10 07:09:36 PM

omeganuepsilon: "opinion"...


Given that you were biatching about opinions, I'd say my post addressed exactly what you were talking about.

If you don't like that, well, I guess that's just your opinion, man....

But since you are concerned with defensible opinions... Do you have any evidence that the entire body of climatology is either A) lying for whatever reason or B) somehow dumb and wrong somehow all in the same direction?

If not, does that mean you're just going by some sort of "truthiness?"
 
2013-02-10 07:13:29 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: I'm a GW skeptic (and a skeptic in general), so I guess that means I'm more competent than those religiou nuts who are absolutely, positively sure that GW is real?


No, you're not.  There's no such thing as  "global warming skeptic."

You see, a "skeptic" is someone who doubts a particular conclusion due to a lack of evidence.  Denial of climate science is a position that exists independent of the evidence and independent of objective reality.  It's a belief.  It's dogma.

There's literally no amount of evidence you could be presented with that would change your mind.  How do I know this?  Because you've already been presented with--and summarily dismissed--nearly 14,000 peer reviewed studies that confirm the conclusions of climate science.
 
2013-02-10 07:15:05 PM

Xcott: You can't really settle an issue like climate change by counting scientists (deniers create inflated lists of "scientists," like the Global Warming Petition Project) or by tying credibility to funding sources.  What you must do instead is observe the consensus in the form of publications based on published evidence.  This clearly shows a consensus for human-induced climate change, regardless of who took money from what industry.


The consensus is still irrelevant as to the actual methodology used and the relevancy of the "data" obtained.((It is technichally data, or information, even if garnered incorrectly, but flawed and unusable for certain if the methodology is flawed))

If one wants to attack the "warming", they have to examine those things, not credentials, not the amount of people that agree, not the status of who writes the paper,  only the evidence in comparison to claims made.

Then again, that goes both ways, and alarmists are also quite the employers of some extreme fallacies.
 
2013-02-10 07:15:56 PM

udhq: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: I'm a GW skeptic (and a skeptic in general), so I guess that means I'm more competent than those religiou nuts who are absolutely, positively sure that GW is real?

No, you're not.  There's no such thing as  "global warming skeptic."

You see, a "skeptic" is someone who doubts a particular conclusion due to a lack of evidence.  Denial of climate science is a position that exists independent of the evidence and independent of objective reality.  It's a belief.  It's dogma.

There's literally no amount of evidence you could be presented with that would change your mind.  How do I know this?  Because you've already been presented with--and summarily dismissed--nearly 14,000 peer reviewed studies that confirm the conclusions of climate science.


Right, but who conducted those studies?  Scientists!  Why should we listen to them?  They have an agenda.  Glenn Beck is smarter than any scientist because he's a college dropout.

rIGHT,
 
2013-02-10 07:17:59 PM

omeganuepsilon: Xcott: You can't really settle an issue like climate change by counting scientists (deniers create inflated lists of "scientists," like the Global Warming Petition Project) or by tying credibility to funding sources.  What you must do instead is observe the consensus in the form of publications based on published evidence.  This clearly shows a consensus for human-induced climate change, regardless of who took money from what industry.

The consensus is still irrelevant as to the actual methodology used and the relevancy of the "data" obtained.((It is technichally data, or information, even if garnered incorrectly, but flawed and unusable for certain if the methodology is flawed))

If one wants to attack the "warming", they have to examine those things, not credentials, not the amount of people that agree, not the status of who writes the paper,  only the evidence in comparison to claims made.

Then again, that goes both ways, and alarmists are also quite the employers of some extreme fallacies.


That's a good point.  Scientists only consider empirical data collected over decades.  They never factor in how people feel about an issue.
 
2013-02-10 07:32:57 PM

udhq: It's a belief.  It's dogma.


So is your alarmism.  Within the confines of fark, it's unfalsifiable as is every religion.

maxheck: Do you have any evidence that the entire body of climatology is either A) lying for whatever reason or B) somehow dumb and wrong somehow all in the same direction?


No, but that it has happened before is reason to not Believe it out of hand, as people do with religion(noted above).

maxheck: Given that you were biatching about opinions, I'd say my post addressed exactly what you were talking about.


Given that I'm talking about the difference between "opinion" and a stance on a controversial topic based on actual reason, yes, you clumsily touched on it in that you included both things.

Scrub the arguments of before, lets start fresh.

Gays is an easy topic, thanks to Kirk Cameron.

He does not like gays, because, according to him(if we were to take his word for it), they are bad for the american way of life.
That is (flawed) reasoning, but reasoning, and therefore not opinion.  We know the some churches actually teache such (flawed)logic.

This standpoint is defensible, or not defensible, depending on the actual logic used.  It is falsifiable, and a rational person can admit if it is shown their theory was wrong.

If he were to come out and say, "I was wrong.  I still don't like gays because the very thought of them makes me queesy", that would be more along the lines of an actual opinion.  One even liberal movements can be fine with. (Often is it stated that people are fine with other people disliking them for the "ick" factor, that's something most people just cannot control).

This preference, this opinon, needs no support, it can simply be.  No amount of logic or reasoning can change the person's unconscious reaction. (therapy and exposure can limit the reaction, that's how phobia's are dealth with, but simple discussion and display of facts cannot)

That is the difference between an opinion, and a reasoned stance(be that stance true logic or a false approximation[[IE religion is not an "opinion" it is a thing taught, therefore there is some reason there, however flawed).  One can be attacked and argued, and the other cannot be.

Now, irrational people will attempt to attack an opinion.  Many times someone who dislikes food X is attacked, people attempting to tell them that their preference is wrong.  That does not make an opinion defensible/not defensible, it still just is what it is.
 
2013-02-10 07:35:35 PM

gimmegimme: That's a good point.  Scientists only consider empirical data collected over decades.


In a perfect utopia, yes.  In reality, not so much of the absolute.  Scientists can be, and are, just as flawed as any of us of the unwashed masses.
 
2013-02-10 07:41:06 PM
omeganuepsilon:

Scrub the arguments of before, lets start fresh.

Fair enough. Do you have any reason to believe that the entire body of climatology is either lying for some reason or somehow all wrong and misguided in the same direction?
That is basically the two options laid out by the "skeptic" community.
 
2013-02-10 07:42:40 PM

omeganuepsilon: gimmegimme: That's a good point.  Scientists only consider empirical data collected over decades.

In a perfect utopia, yes.  In reality, not so much of the absolute.  Scientists can be, and are, just as flawed as any of us of the unwashed masses.


Maxheck asked the right question.
 
2013-02-10 07:45:59 PM
maxheck: omeganuepsilon: Scrub the arguments of before, lets start fresh. Fair enough. Do you have any reason to believe that the entire body of climatology is either lying for some reason or somehow all wrong and misguided in the same direction? That is Those are basically the two options laid out by the "skeptic" community.

/ FTFM... Geez.
 
2013-02-10 07:49:42 PM

maxheck: omeganuepsilon:

Scrub the arguments of before, lets start fresh.

Fair enough. Do you have any reason to believe that the entire body of climatology is either lying for some reason or somehow all wrong and misguided in the same direction?
That is basically the two options laid out by the "skeptic" community.


Again, a reduction to absurdity, in part.

The problem in part is how you tie "skeptic" to denier, leaving no agnostic middle ground.  I simply believe neither out of hand(deniers or alarmists).  They both have flaws in their arguments for certain, which is the primary reason I post in these threads at all, it's fun to pick apart people's fallacies, to reveal them for charlatans.

Now, I pick apart an alarmists argument, he makes the false assumption that i'm a denier, and the cycle starts over.

Maybe many people who are actually deniers self identify as skeptics, but that does not mean all self identifiers as such ARE deniers.

Now, if you want to pretend a rational skeptic is an impossibility, more power to you and your quasi-religious beliefs.
 
2013-02-10 07:52:19 PM
The qualifier on that last sentence is IF.  If it does not apply, so be it.
 
2013-02-10 07:53:59 PM

omeganuepsilon: maxheck: omeganuepsilon:

Scrub the arguments of before, lets start fresh.

Fair enough. Do you have any reason to believe that the entire body of climatology is either lying for some reason or somehow all wrong and misguided in the same direction?
That is basically the two options laid out by the "skeptic" community.

Again, a reduction to absurdity, in part.

The problem in part is how you tie "skeptic" to denier, leaving no agnostic middle ground.  I simply believe neither out of hand(deniers or alarmists).  They both have flaws in their arguments for certain, which is the primary reason I post in these threads at all, it's fun to pick apart people's fallacies, to reveal them for charlatans.

Now, I pick apart an alarmists argument, he makes the false assumption that i'm a denier, and the cycle starts over.

Maybe many people who are actually deniers self identify as skeptics, but that does not mean all self identifiers as such ARE deniers.

Now, if you want to pretend a rational skeptic is an impossibility, more power to you and your quasi-religious beliefs.


This is your answer:

upload.wikimedia.org

Please present your evidence that the climate science movement as a whole "is either lying for some reason or somehow all wrong and misguided in the same direction".

p.s.  When you label the scientists as "alarmists," you're indicating your bias.
 
2013-02-10 07:58:25 PM

omeganuepsilon: maxheck: omeganuepsilon:

Scrub the arguments of before, lets start fresh.

Fair enough. Do you have any reason to believe that the entire body of climatology is either lying for some reason or somehow all wrong and misguided in the same direction?
That is basically the two options laid out by the "skeptic" community.

Again, a reduction to absurdity, in part.

The problem in part is how you tie "skeptic" to denier, leaving no agnostic middle ground.  I simply believe neither out of hand(deniers or alarmists).  They both have flaws in their arguments for certain, which is the primary reason I post in these threads at all, it's fun to pick apart people's fallacies, to reveal them for charlatans.

Now, I pick apart an alarmists argument, he makes the false assumption that i'm a denier, and the cycle starts over.

Maybe many people who are actually deniers self identify as skeptics, but that does not mean all self identifiers as such ARE deniers.

Now, if you want to pretend a rational skeptic is an impossibility, more power to you and your quasi-religious beliefs.



Note that one can be rational, but operate said rationality from a position of relative ignorance about the topic.
 
2013-02-10 08:00:29 PM
omeganuepsilon:

maxheck: omeganuepsilon:

Scrub the arguments of before, lets start fresh.

Fair enough. Do you have any reason to believe that the entire body of climatology is either lying for some reason or somehow all wrong and misguided in the same direction?
That is basically the two options laid out by the "skeptic" community.

Again, a reduction to absurdity, in part.


It seemed a pretty straightforward question. Would you care to answer it?


To restate:

Do you have any reason to believe that the entire body of climatology is either lying for some reason or somehow all wrong and misguided in the same direction? Those are basically the two options laid out by the "skeptic" community.
 
2013-02-10 08:02:15 PM

omeganuepsilon: They both have flaws in their arguments for certain


Ok Einstein, please do point out the flaws in the scientific arguments made by 'alarmists'? Is one flaw that they rely on spooky averages at a distance?
 
2013-02-10 08:05:09 PM

maxheck: omeganuepsilon:

maxheck: omeganuepsilon:

Scrub the arguments of before, lets start fresh.

Fair enough. Do you have any reason to believe that the entire body of climatology is either lying for some reason or somehow all wrong and misguided in the same direction?
That is basically the two options laid out by the "skeptic" community.

Again, a reduction to absurdity, in part.

It seemed a pretty straightforward question. Would you care to answer it?


To restate:

Do you have any reason to believe that the entire body of climatology is either lying for some reason or somehow all wrong and misguided in the same direction? Those are basically the two options laid out by the "skeptic" community.



Perhaps to explicitly avoid the potential for absurdity, we can instead substitute "vast majority of" instead of "entire body of".
 
2013-02-10 08:06:20 PM

omeganuepsilon: udhq: It's a belief.  It's dogma.

So is your alarmism.  Within the confines of fark, it's unfalsifiable as is every religion.


*facepalm*

You don't know what the word "unfalsifiable" means. There are 2 kinds of claims that are unfalsifiable: 1, claims the by their very nature refute any evidence to the contrary (for instance, belief in an omnipotent, but undetectable god), and 2, claims that that evidence have shown to be TRUE.
 

Climate change is does not fall in the first group, since it is subject to evidence that could hypothetically show it to be false.  in this case, however, nearly 14,000 peer-reviewed studies all point to group #2.
 Do you know what we call dogma + evidence?  We call it REALITY.
 
2013-02-10 08:09:52 PM
maxheck

omeganuepsilon:

maxheck: omeganuepsilon:

Scrub the arguments of before, lets start fresh.

Fair enough. Do you have any reason to believe that the entire body of climatology is either lying for some reason or somehow all wrong and misguided in the same direction?
That is basically the two options laid out by the "skeptic" community.

Again, a reduction to absurdity, in part.

It seemed a pretty straightforward question. Would you care to answer it?


To restate:

Do you have any reason to believe that the entire body of climatology is either lying for some reason or somehow all wrong and misguided in the same direction? Those are basically the two options laid out by the "skeptic" community.


Perhaps to explicitly avoid the potential for absurdity, we can instead substitute "vast majority of" instead of "entire body of".


True, although I doubt "97% of everyone who has ever studied the problem" vs. "damn near everyone concerned" is going to make much difference as far as omegaepsilon answering the question. He's probably gone for the evening whatever the case.
 
2013-02-10 08:16:51 PM

gimmegimme: This is your answer:


Only because I'm not limiting myself to monosylabic grunts so as to be at your intellectual level.

gimmegimme: Please present your evidence that the climate science movement as a whole "is either lying for some reason or somehow all wrong and misguided in the same direction".


I never even implied that is what I thought.  I stated above that it is but a possibility.  That is how an actual skeptic views things, takes into account the different possibilities.

I will admit I have been reticent to state what educated guesses I have about global warming, because it is incredibly entertaining to watch you alarmists(yes, when I use that word I am talking about farkers, not the scientists) flounder and jump to conclusions about what I "actually mean".

Our climate is changing.  We are on an ascending slope.  Ice caps, CO2, pretty obvious and irrefutable.

I do take a skeptic view on the methodology of the heavily processed numbers coming out with a single "global average", as well as the margin of error in temperature "averages" based on a smaller sample over the course of our pre-technological history.

filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com

That point made, the severity of the issue is in question.
I am undecided.  I do not have the time nor the money to study the topic in depth.  Part skepticism, part apathy.

If it is serious, I would still welcome change.

Learn to swim, see you down in Arizona Bay
Ænema
 -TOOL
 
2013-02-10 08:17:53 PM

omeganuepsilon: Again, a reduction to absurdity, in part.


May your children and their children grow up in the world you have left for them.
 
2013-02-10 08:20:05 PM

omeganuepsilon: The problem in part is how you tie "skeptic" to denier, leaving no agnostic middle ground.


To question the conclusions of climate science at this point means you have already summarily dismissed nearly 14,000 peer reviewed studies, proving that no amount of evidence can or will change your mind.

This makes your belief just that: a belief, independent of reality and not based in any kind of an objective evaluation of the available evidence.
 
2013-02-10 08:22:27 PM

omeganuepsilon: gimmegimme: This is your answer:

Only because I'm not limiting myself to monosylabic grunts so as to be at your intellectual level.

gimmegimme: Please present your evidence that the climate science movement as a whole "is either lying for some reason or somehow all wrong and misguided in the same direction".

I never even implied that is what I thought.  I stated above that it is but a possibility.  That is how an actual skeptic views things, takes into account the different possibilities.

I will admit I have been reticent to state what educated guesses I have about global warming, because it is incredibly entertaining to watch you alarmists(yes, when I use that word I am talking about farkers, not the scientists) flounder and jump to conclusions about what I "actually mean".

Our climate is changing.  We are on an ascending slope.  Ice caps, CO2, pretty obvious and irrefutable.

I do take a skeptic view on the methodology of the heavily processed numbers coming out with a single "global average", as well as the margin of error in temperature "averages" based on a smaller sample over the course of our pre-technological history.

[filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com image 379x327]

That point made, the severity of the issue is in question.
I am undecided.  I do not have the time nor the money to study the topic in depth.  Part skepticism, part apathy.

If it is serious, I would still welcome change.

Learn to swim, see you down in Arizona Bay
Ænema
 -TOOL


I'm amused by your insistence upon using the names of logical fallacies to try and convince people you are smart and you immediately break out the ad hominem.
 
2013-02-10 08:25:19 PM

omeganuepsilon: gimmegimme: This is your answer:

Only because I'm not limiting myself to monosylabic grunts so as to be at your intellectual level.

gimmegimme: Please present your evidence that the climate science movement as a whole "is either lying for some reason or somehow all wrong and misguided in the same direction".

I never even implied that is what I thought.  I stated above that it is but a possibility.  That is how an actual skeptic views things, takes into account the different possibilities.

I will admit I have been reticent to state what educated guesses I have about global warming, because it is incredibly entertaining to watch you alarmists(yes, when I use that word I am talking about farkers, not the scientists) flounder and jump to conclusions about what I "actually mean".

Our climate is changing.  We are on an ascending slope.  Ice caps, CO2, pretty obvious and irrefutable.

I do take a skeptic view on the methodology of the heavily processed numbers coming out with a single "global average", as well as the margin of error in temperature "averages" based on a smaller sample over the course of our pre-technological history.

[filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com image 379x327]

That point made, the severity of the issue is in question.
I am undecided.  I do not have the time nor the money to study the topic in depth.  Part skepticism, part apathy.

If it is serious, I would still welcome change.

Learn to swim, see you down in Arizona Bay
Ænema
 -TOOL



Scepticism in the face of one's own ignorance is still ignorance. While it's an acceptable position if there is no more information available, given the relative ease of availability and accessibility of information about this particular topic, it's less defensible and operationally similar to an argument from personal incredulity.
 
2013-02-10 08:33:48 PM

omeganuepsilon: gimmegimme: This is your answer:

Only because I'm not limiting myself to monosylabic grunts so as to be at your intellectual level.

gimmegimme: Please present your evidence that the climate science movement as a whole "is either lying for some reason or somehow all wrong and misguided in the same direction".

I never even implied that is what I thought.  I stated above that it is but a possibility.  That is how an actual skeptic views things, takes into account the different possibilities.

I will admit I have been reticent to state what educated guesses I have about global warming, because it is incredibly entertaining to watch you alarmists(yes, when I use that word I am talking about farkers, not the scientists) flounder and jump to conclusions about what I "actually mean".

Our climate is changing.  We are on an ascending slope.  Ice caps, CO2, pretty obvious and irrefutable.

I do take a skeptic view on the methodology of the heavily processed numbers coming out with a single "global average", as well as the margin of error in temperature "averages" based on a smaller sample over the course of our pre-technological history.

[filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com image 379x327]

That point made, the severity of the issue is in question.
I am undecided.  I do not have the time nor the money to study the topic in depth.  Part skepticism, part apathy.

If it is serious, I would still welcome change.

Learn to swim, see you down in Arizona Bay
Ænema
 -TOOL



So, you accept climate change but reject any sort of action to combat it.  Explain again how is that not the worst of all possible conclusions to draw?


And no, "I'm not an alarmist" is not a position, it's a negative.  I'm not an alarmist either.  Being alarmed does not make one an alarmist.  Climate change has already begun mass human displacement (google the Carteret Islands resettlement).  If you're not alarmed, it's only because you're not paying attention.
 
2013-02-10 08:37:25 PM

Wolf_Blitzer:

here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.

6/10, I especially appreciate the quotes around "theory".

It's very appropriate. AGW has not graduated to a theory yet. It is (a/an) hypothesis. As a matter of fact, it is a falsified hypothesis, so no "theory" tag for you. Not yours.
 
2013-02-10 08:38:53 PM
Wow, look at them crawl out of the woodwork.  So many fallacies, so little time.

omeganuepsilon: you alarmists(yes, when I use that word I am talking about farkers, not the scientists)


That one's pretty obvious.

maxheck: Do you have any reason to believe


Ok, I'll simplify it for you

No.

I also have no reason to trust them implicitly.
I strive to NOT operate on belief at all, like most actual skeptics(and unlike a goodly number of alarmists and deniers).

udhq: since it is subject to evidence that could hypothetically show it to be false


OK.  How could I prove their methodology/premise to be false?

Should be a very quick reply on this one, since you are all statistic experts and in possession of all of the facts and relevant knowledge.

HighZoolander: Ok Einstein, please do point out the flaws in the scientific arguments made by 'alarmists'?


Well, quoting you is an example of one, of a sort.  You being the alarmist(as noted above), are presenting a flawed argument.

That's easy.  I've listed plenty of fallacies in this thread.
Xcott: What you must do instead is observe the consensus in the form of publications based on published evidence.
And my response:
That is known as
Argumentum ad populum, aka:  appeal to the masses,appeal to belief,appeal to the majority,appeal to democracy,argument by consensus,consensus fallacy,authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy


That is all I'm willing to do for now, the new post window is farking up all my quotes and copy pasta.
 
2013-02-10 08:47:01 PM
Which is more likely?

A) 97% of climate scientists are deluded and crazy, yet clever enough to fake all their data in such a way that it's consistent..

B) 97% of climate scientists are all in on the global conspiracy, despite the umpteen different funding models they get paid by... And also consistent, see A)

C) Exxon / Mobil et al. spent <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of- doubt/s teve-coll-how-exxon-shaped-the-climate-debate/ " target="_blank">millions of dollars making sure that ACC FUD got into the ear of every AM radio listener and Fox News viewer.

Or, you know, perhaps the scientists who study these things aren't in fact lying or stupid.
 
2013-02-10 08:50:06 PM
GeneralJim:

Wolf_Blitzer:

here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.

6/10, I especially appreciate the quotes around "theory".


It's very appropriate. AGW has not graduated to a theory yet. It is (a/an) hypothesis. As a matter of fact, it is a falsified hypothesis, so no "theory" tag for you. Not yours.

Coming from a guy who believes that Jesus was a laser... I'd say Hypothesis is a step up.
 
2013-02-10 08:53:47 PM

omeganuepsilon: udhq: since it is subject to evidence that could hypothetically show it to be false

OK. How could I prove their methodology/premise to be false?

Should be a very quick reply on this one, since you are all statistic experts and in possession of all of the facts and relevant knowledge.


Cue the Futurama alien newscaster: "Evidence does not work that way".

Data are not true or false.  What's falsifiable are the conclusions that the data point to.

In this case, you happen to be accidentally right:  You can't prove the conclusions of climate science to be false for the simple but key reason that they have already been proven to be true.

No matter how you say it, it all comes down to "I choose not to believe the evidence that points to a conclusion that contradicts my worldview."
 
2013-02-10 08:54:29 PM

omeganuepsilon: HighZoolander: Ok Einstein, please do point out the flaws in the scientific arguments made by 'alarmists'?

Well, quoting you is an example of one, of a sort.  You being the alarmist(as noted above), are presenting a flawed argument.

That's easy.  I've listed plenty of fallacies in this thread.
Xcott: What you must do instead is observe the consensus in the form of publications based on published evidence.
And my response:
That is known as
Argumentum ad populum, aka:  appeal to the masses,appeal to belief,appeal to the majority,appeal to democracy,argument by consensus,consensus fallacy,authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy

That is all I'm willing to do for now, the new post window is farking up all my quotes and copy pasta.



Please give one example that shows that I am 'alarmed'. And then do explain the flaw in my 'argument' - was it calling you Einstein? That was sarcasm, but otherwise I'm at a loss here.

/also, with respect to averages - the picture is cute and all, but that's not nearly the same as what you said earlier, which was that averages do not provide actual information. But since you can't seem to fathom the difference between possibility and probability/likelihood, I guess I'm not surprised that you don't get the difference between information and certainty either.
 
2013-02-10 08:56:08 PM

udhq: To question the conclusions of climate science at this point means you have already summarily dismissed


Question reliability =/= summary dismissal

gimmegimme: ad hominem.


Ah, but I am not attempting to discredit  you via insult, I am making an ordinary observation.  There is a distinct difference.

udhq: So, you accept climate change but reject any sort of action to combat it.  Explain again how is that not the worst of all possible conclusions to draw?


Again with the judgement of a simple opinion.

I also don't object to positive change on part of people, if they want to.  Legislation, I do reject.  No point in preserving the planet temporarily if people have to be forced and coddled along.  I'm more of a fan of Darwin, and not some borderline delusion utpoia that you all seem to purport is possible if we were only to try a tiny bit harder.  I find that sort of naive optimism the epitome of functionally retarded.

There is an alternative, in that some may want the people to become more like easily herded sheep, and simply be docile and loyal.  That's the other side of the coin of sunny optimism, simple sadism(or what have you, that word is as good as any other dominatrix/alpha male sort of meaning)

udhq: Being alarmed does not make one an alarmist.


In your Delusional Dictionary of the Deranged, sure, whatever.


Look folks, it's been fun, but tiresome, what with you all trying to jump on my crotch at the same time.  I need a hydration break at the very least if you want to continue to dine on my cereberal emanations.  Seriously, slow down a bit, learn to enjoy the ride, not just the swallowing part.
 
2013-02-10 09:00:12 PM
Jake Havechek:

How about we think about all the money Dubya wasted fighting a war over WMDs that did not exist and call it even.
Another retarded leftist talking point. Essentially everyone on the planet was certain Saddam had WMD, even these clowns: Democrats' Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
 
2013-02-10 09:06:07 PM

omeganuepsilon: Look folks, it's been fun, but tiresome, what with you all trying to jump on my crotch at the same time.  I need a hydration break at the very least if you want to continue to dine on my cereberal emanations.  Seriously, slow down a bit, learn to enjoy the ride, not just the swallowing part.


There's a lot there to feast on - I didn't think this would be possible in my lifetime, but you're actually starting to make GeneralJim look sane in comparison. For example:


omeganuepsilon: I also don't object to positive change on part of people, if they want to.  Legislation, I do reject.   No point in preserving the planet temporarily if people have to be forced and coddled along.  I'm more of a fan of Darwin, and not some borderline delusion utpoia that you all seem to purport is possible if we were only to try a tiny bit harder.  I find that sort of naive optimism the epitome of functionally retarded.


I agree. Let's just abolish laws altogether and let people sort everything out for themselves. Who wants to live on a planet when people are forced not to rape/pillage/plunder one another? Because that's exactly what would happen if we took even one small step towards this Darwinian (totally non-delusional) utopia you advocate.

/the alarm in this post was also sarcastic, as was my agreement
//the bolded part of the second quote is one of the most fantastically stupid things I've read all year.
 
2013-02-10 09:07:51 PM
Wolf_Blitzer:

The primary control on Earth's climate over geological time scales is the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
This is either a lie, or simple ignorance.  Observe how poorly temperature and carbon dioxide correlate over geologic time:

www.paulmacrae.com
 
2013-02-10 09:10:24 PM

GeneralJim: Wolf_Blitzer:

The primary control on Earth's climate over geological time scales is the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.This is either a lie, or simple ignorance.  Observe how poorly temperature and carbon dioxide correlate over geologic time:

[www.paulmacrae.com image 660x417]



As pointed out to you many times, this line of reasoning only works if you somehow believe that only one factor can affect temperature at any given time, or that different factors are somehow mutually exclusive.
 
2013-02-10 09:23:22 PM

omeganuepsilon: I also don't object to positive change on part of people, if they want to. Legislation, I do reject. No point in preserving the planet temporarily if people have to be forced and coddled along. I'm more of a fan of Darwin, and not some borderline delusion utpoia that you all seem to purport is possible if we were only to try a tiny bit harder. I find that sort of naive optimism the epitome of functionally retarded.

There is an alternative, in that some may want the people to become more like easily herded sheep, and simply be docile and loyal. That's the other side of the coin of sunny optimism, simple sadism(or what have you, that word is as good as any other dominatrix/alpha male sort of meaning)


Ahhh, So your entire argument is voluntary human extinction rather than make people follow laws they don't like?

That's certainly...um...something one can say anonymously on the internet for attention when they've backed themselves into a corner.....
 
2013-02-10 09:26:04 PM

Damnhippyfreak: this line of reasoning only works if you somehow believe that only one factor can affect temperature at any given time, or that different factors are somehow mutually exclusive.


I found THIS part of a climate lecture educational
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVCps_SwD5w&feature=youtu.be&t=29m26s

Of course, watching the entire video puts it in context.
 
2013-02-10 09:44:24 PM

Wolf_Blitzer:

omeganuepsilon: lol

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science (publishers of <i>Science</i>, one of the two most-respected scientific journals in the world):

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.


Indeed.  And, one of the reasons AGW fails to become a theory is that every time it is tested against reality -- you know, observations, not model output -- it has fallen very short.  That's why morons like James Hansen are altering the historical data -- the planet stubbornly refuses to back up the warmer alarmists.  Observational research shows, rather conclusively, that estimates made of the atmosphere's sensitivity to carbon dioxide were way too high.  Doubling carbon dioxide is essentially certain to produce less than 1.10 K of warming.  And, each new discovery shows that the negative feedback provided to carbon dioxide is larger than expected.  The warmer alarmist part of AGW REQUIRES a positive feedback about twice as large as the original forcing of the carbon dioxide.  That is simply not there.  Not only is it insufficient, it is negative feedback.

Add to that that we are in a geologic ice age, about as cold as the planet has ever been, averaged on a million-year window, and one must conclude that worrying about less than a degree Celsius of warming is highly unscientific, and literally stupid enough to require that it be a political issue, rather than a scientific one.  And, a political issue it is.  It involves lying, cheating, and faking data.  Various government units have wood for the control that people would gladly give them, if the people only believe that it is "saving the planet."  In their quest, funding for climate science has been increased twenty-fold since the panic was inculcated.  Much of this has been used to ensure that the "correct" people become in charge of the global data repositories.  That way, a mere handful of scientists can alter the whole direction of the information coming from climate science.

Climate scientists are not stupid people.  They have learned that if their data do not support the warmer alarmists, they must include a boilerplate paragraph in their conclusions about how desperate is our situation, and how necessary it is that we immediately let international government take control of world-wide business to save us.  This paragraph, totally unrelated to the data and actual conclusions to be drawn from them, appears in very many climate-related papers, as clearly documented by Michael Crichton in his book State Of Fear.  While a book of fiction, the center section of the book is packed with actual peer-reviewed papers, highlighting the lack of alarm as indicated by the data, and the totally out-of-context paragraph sitting in the conclusions section...  thus ensuring that more funding will be available.

 
2013-02-10 09:50:29 PM

GeneralJim: Climate scientists are not stupid people.  They have learned that if their data do not support the warmer alarmists, they must include a boilerplate paragraph in their conclusions about how desperate is our situation, and how necessary it is that we immediately let international government take control of world-wide business to save us.  This paragraph, totally unrelated to the data and actual conclusions to be drawn from them, appears in very many climate-related papers, as clearly documented by Michael Crichton in his book State Of Fear.  While a book of fiction, the center section of the book is packed with actual peer-reviewed papers, highlighting the lack of alarm as indicated by the data, and the totally out-of-context paragraph sitting in the conclusions section...  thus ensuring that more funding will be available.


LOL. That is so much funnier because you're serious.
 
2013-02-10 09:58:25 PM

udhq: So your entire argument is voluntary human extinction


Your ability to pull words our of your ass and pretend other people actually said them is only rivaled by your complete lack of actual wit and cleverness.

omeganuepsilon: We're strong, we'll survive, as a species.  Climate change will happen, nothing we can do will change that.

Pressure to change to adapt now tends to be more healthy than putting off the inevitable and becoming complacent.

Necessity drives invention, not so much our present fictional utopia.


We have a dillema. We burn a lot of fossil fuels.

Anything short of a complete cease and desist, the typically suggested slight scale back, would to next to nothing to slow our growing problem.

A complete cut-off would see just as many starve and live bleak lives as would a global apocalypse were either to happen tomorrow.

As I said, nothing compels adaptation and innovation like actual need for survival.

I'd prefer to keep all technologies until we can no longer use them(Ie things that operate on fossil fuels). Billions of people currently rely on them to eat food every day as it is, or use that power to get on the internet and complain about not loving the planet or some such(with the always environmentally unfriendly computer in the first place), or drive to work, etc etc. Best way to quit is to go cold turky out of desperation. Harassing people to quit doesn't work, it only makes them irate.

It would take quite a technological revolution to avoid great loss either way we go. I'd rather not sacrifice, just as the majority obviously doesn't want to sacrifice. I say enjoy a rich but short life, not live a meager existence for a very long time. We spent a very long time living like savages, I'd rather not return to that. If you really do care, it's relatively easy to cut your CO2 footprint to practically zero...if you really did care, you'd already have done so and would live in a tent in the woods.

But at that, we won't ALL die(your extinction vs what I actually said), human's will live on, we're quite adapable, we've made it through an ice age without technology, imagine what we can do with technology. I see no particular reason to hamstring ourselves in that area.
 
2013-02-10 10:00:46 PM

omeganuepsilon: udhq: So your entire argument is voluntary human extinction

Your ability to pull words our of your ass and pretend other people actually said them is only rivaled by your complete lack of actual wit and cleverness.

omeganuepsilon: We're strong, we'll survive, as a species.  Climate change will happen, nothing we can do will change that.

Pressure to change to adapt now tends to be more healthy than putting off the inevitable and becoming complacent.

Necessity drives invention, not so much our present fictional utopia.

We have a dillema. We burn a lot of fossil fuels.

Anything short of a complete cease and desist, the typically suggested slight scale back, would to next to nothing to slow our growing problem.

A complete cut-off would see just as many starve and live bleak lives as would a global apocalypse were either to happen tomorrow.

As I said, nothing compels adaptation and innovation like actual need for survival.

I'd prefer to keep all technologies until we can no longer use them(Ie things that operate on fossil fuels). Billions of people currently rely on them to eat food every day as it is, or use that power to get on the internet and complain about not loving the planet or some such(with the always environmentally unfriendly computer in the first place), or drive to work, etc etc. Best way to quit is to go cold turky out of desperation. Harassing people to quit doesn't work, it only makes them irate.

It would take quite a technological revolution to avoid great loss either way we go. I'd rather not sacrifice, just as the majority obviously doesn't want to sacrifice. I say enjoy a rich but short life, not live a meager existence for a very long time. We spent a very long time living like savages, I'd rather not return to that. If you really do care, it's relatively easy to cut your CO2 footprint to practically zero...if you really did care, you'd already have done so and would live in a tent in the woods.

But at that, we won't ALL die(your e ...


I would ask to subscribe to your newsletter, but I can just go to WND any time I want.
 
2013-02-10 10:01:54 PM

maxheck: GeneralJim:

Wolf_Blitzer:

here to help: So called "scientists" haven't provided one shred of evidence to support their climate change "theory". Until they come up with some hard facts I want to be able to opt out of any of my tax dollars going to the "environmental" boondoggles of this administration.

6/10, I especially appreciate the quotes around "theory".


It's very appropriate. AGW has not graduated to a theory yet. It is (a/an) hypothesis. As a matter of fact, it is a falsified hypothesis, so no "theory" tag for you. Not yours.

Coming from a guy who believes that Jesus was a laser... I'd say Hypothesis is a step up.




First hit for laser Jesus.
 
2013-02-10 10:09:05 PM

gimmegimme: I would ask to subscribe to your newsletter, but I can just go to WND any time I want.


What is humorous is that you're implying I'm a conservative, yet you're the one who want's to maintain the planet, and I'm the one who welcomes drastic change.

I obviously reject religion, embrace evolution, and see modern society for the fetid corpse that it is.  We need a great and tangible catalyst if we're going to survive ourselves.

But yeah, I'm the conservative.
 
2013-02-10 10:13:51 PM
Christ, what an asshole.
 
2013-02-10 10:14:38 PM

omeganuepsilon: gimmegimme: I would ask to subscribe to your newsletter, but I can just go to WND any time I want.

What is humorous is that you're implying I'm a conservative, yet you're the one who want's to maintain the planet, and I'm the one who welcomes drastic change.

I obviously reject religion, embrace evolution, and see modern society for the fetid corpse that it is.  We need a great and tangible catalyst if we're going to survive ourselves.

But yeah, I'm the conservative.


No, I'm saying that your sentences make no sense and your positions are silly and your use of rhetoric is flawed.  These are the same qualities possessed by WND articles.
 
2013-02-10 10:21:05 PM
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

As far as making sense, communication is a two way street.  If you don't understand it it's a distinct possibility you're the one with the problem.

Then again, you do understand it because you evidently come the conclusion that it's "silly"..

And silly, wow, what an intellectual review.  What, are you a gradeschool teacher?

Rhetoric?  Now, that is rich.  i'm simply stating my point of view, if you don't agree so be it, but I'm not just up here spewing doubletalk, though I can understand how one with your obvious limitations would see it as such.
 
2013-02-10 10:23:08 PM

GeneralJim: Wolf_Blitzer: omeganuepsilon: lol

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science (publishers of <i>Science</i>, one of the two most-respected scientific journals in the world):

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Indeed.  And, one of the reasons AGW fails to become a theory is that every time it is tested against reality -- you know, observations, not model output -- it has fallen very short.  That's why morons like James Hansen are altering the historical data -- the planet stubbornly refuses to back up the warmer alarmists.  Observational research shows, rather conclusively, that estimates made of the atmosphere's sensitivity to carbon dioxide were way too high.  Doubling carbon dioxide is essentially certain to produce less than 1.10 K of warming.  And, each new discovery shows that the negative feedback provided to carbon dioxide is larger than expected.  The warmer alarmist part of AGW REQUIRES a positive feedback about twice as large as the original forcing of the carbon dioxide.  That is simply not there.  Not only is it insufficient, it is negative feedback.

Add to that that we are in a geologic ice age, about as cold as the planet has ever been, averaged on a million-year window, and one must conclude that worrying about less than a degree Celsius of warming is highly unscientific, and literally stupid enough to require that it be a political issue, rather than a scientific one.  And, a political issue it is.  It involves lying, cheating, and faking data.  Various government units have wood for the control that people would gladly give them, if the people only believe that it is "saving the planet."  In their quest, funding for climate science has been increased twenty-fold since the panic ...



My first question was whether this screed was against climate change, or just AGW, but it's just so disjointed and schizophrenic that I'm not sure we can assign that level of intent to this word salad.


/I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
 
2013-02-10 10:23:44 PM

omeganuepsilon: I obviously reject religion, embrace evolution, and see modern society for the fetid corpse that it is.   We need a great and tangible catalyst if we're going to survive ourselves.


Setting aside your other points, why do you say this? And what do you mean by it?

In my six decades of personal observation the world has generally and gradually improved. By fits and starts, for sure, but at no time in history have their been fewer wars, less racial and religious violence, better education and work opportunities for more people, more gender equality, more food and better health care, longer lives, and so on and so forth.

Sure, we have a ways to go, but by any measure I am confident Earth will be an even more pleasant place to be born a century from now than it is today. Quit reading so much Malthus and Club of Rome, and start getting excited by the progress being made on so many fronts to tackle the many challenges remaining. The best is yet to come.
 
2013-02-10 10:25:52 PM

omeganuepsilon: That's easy. I've listed plenty of fallacies in this thread.

Xcott: What you must do instead is observe the consensus in the form of publications based on published evidence.

And my response:
That is known as Argumentum ad populum, aka: appeal to the masses,appeal to belief,appeal to the majority,appeal to democracy,argument by consensus,consensus fallacy,authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy


Absolutely astounding.  So you think that citing the consensus of published evidence is argumentum ad populum?  Because it's an appeal to the majority...of scientific observations?

I guess if that's how you see it, then the entirety of the scientific method is one big logical fallacy.  Along with those long-run averages you seem to find so suspicious.

/Data points are people, my friend.
 
2013-02-10 10:26:50 PM

Stone Meadow: The best is yet to come.


this
 
2013-02-10 10:32:19 PM

omeganuepsilon: What I wonder about, is if you would actually see a "trend" if you took not a questionable average, but picked a place, measured it's actual temperature every july 4th.


I see that you've injected the word "questionable" in there.  This is not skepticism, but intentional FUD.

Unless you can show why those averages are misleading, beyond some general skepticism of statistics   bolstered by cartoons, you shouldn't be calling them "questionable."
 
2013-02-10 10:34:30 PM

omeganuepsilon: [encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 274x184]

As far as making sense, communication is a two way street.  If you don't understand it it's a distinct possibility you're the one with the problem.

Then again, you do understand it because you evidently come the conclusion that it's "silly"..

And silly, wow, what an intellectual review.  What, are you a gradeschool teacher?

Rhetoric?  Now, that is rich.  i'm simply stating my point of view, if you don't agree so be it, but I'm not just up here spewing doubletalk, though I can understand how one with your obvious limitations would see it as such.


You stated earlier that you haven't yet resorted to the ad hominem.  I have to congratulate you for your brave stances and your obvious dedication to the truth as you (and only you) see it.
 
2013-02-10 11:00:16 PM

Wolf_Blitzer:

The reason we currently have glacial-interglacial cycles is that geological processes (mostly reduction of greenhouse gases, but also continental configuration) cooled the planet to the point that Milankovitch cycles could produce fluctuations in continental ice cover. At higher levels of CO2, orbital changes don't produce glaciation, which is something we see in the older geologic records, when the planet was warmer.


And THIS is where keeping up with the science would be good -- also, don't just get your information from sources guaranteed to support your position.  The reason we are in a geologic ice age now is because of cosmic ray flux.  Svensmark identified this some years back, and was told that the process he envisions is not possible, according to the laws of physics.  Experiments done at CERN last year proved him correct.  These findings are so devastating to the AGW hypothesis supported by, among others, the people who fund CERN, that CERN scientists were ordered not to discuss how the findings of their CLOUD experiment relate to climate science.  As I understand it, this is the first time scientists there have been ordered to shut up.

AGW has already been falsified, and, speaking scientifically, is dead.  But, despite the fact of AGW's demise, its zombie corpse continues to roam, trying to shore up the continuing power-grab by governments.  And, of course, there are lots of useful idiots out there willing to soldier on in the name of planet-saving.

 
2013-02-10 11:14:27 PM

GeneralJim: Wolf_Blitzer: The reason we currently have glacial-interglacial cycles is that geological processes (mostly reduction of greenhouse gases, but also continental configuration) cooled the planet to the point that Milankovitch cycles could produce fluctuations in continental ice cover. At higher levels of CO2, orbital changes don't produce glaciation, which is something we see in the older geologic records, when the planet was warmer.

And THIS is where keeping up with the science would be good -- also, don't just get your information from sources guaranteed to support your position.  The reason we are in a geologic ice age now is because of cosmic ray flux.  Svensmark identified this some years back, and was told that the process he envisions is not possible, according to the laws of physics.  Experiments done at CERN last year proved him correct.  These findings are so devastating to the AGW hypothesis supported by, among others, the people who fund CERN, that CERN scientists were ordered not to discuss how the findings of their CLOUD experiment relate to climate science.  As I understand it, this is the first time scientists there have been ordered to shut up.

AGW has already been falsified, and, speaking scientifically, is dead.  But, despite the fact of AGW's demise, its zombie corpse continues to roam, trying to shore up the continuing power-grab by governments.  And, of course, there are lots of useful idiots out there willing to soldier on in the name of planet-saving.


Seems legit.....
 
2013-02-10 11:20:23 PM

Stone Meadow: omeganuepsilon: I obviously reject religion, embrace evolution, and see modern society for the fetid corpse that it is.   We need a great and tangible catalyst if we're going to survive ourselves.

Setting aside your other points, why do you say this? And what do you mean by it?

In my six decades of personal observation the world has generally and gradually improved. By fits and starts, for sure, but at no time in history have their been fewer wars, less racial and religious violence, better education and work opportunities for more people, more gender equality, more food and better health care, longer lives, and so on and so forth.

Sure, we have a ways to go, but by any measure I am confident Earth will be an even more pleasant place to be born a century from now than it is today. Quit reading so much Malthus and Club of Rome, and start getting excited by the progress being made on so many fronts to tackle the many challenges remaining. The best is yet to come.


Meh, most of those improvements are localized to "civilized" locations, but have begotten their own woes.

Organized crime... gang/drug warfare...Copyright math... 100 miles within the border of the us being a 4th amendment free zone... TSA in general...US elections are almost a joke(See how republicans have changed zonings and such to get elected as major officials and have sights on the Oval Office by the same means(instead of you know, actually representing the people and what they want and getting elected because a lot of people want that).... Even the US there is still a fairly large problem with equal rights(in actual practice) for Blacks, females, gays...  We tolerate with open arms groups like Westboro Baptists, because that is the "fair' thing to do(to be nice and tolerant of everyone)...  Our political system itself is more and more about toeing the line on groups of topics that should be anything but a binary black and white issue... People feeling disenfranchised is at an all time high(it seems)... Police violence... Dominionism present but still able to fly under the radar in the US(somewhat comparable Sharia law in the middle east, but christian)... Corruption in many levels of government, the whole Dormer fiasco with the LAPD farking up seriously left and right...bailouts for businesses that make bad decisions while people sit and await a trial for longer than their maximum sentence would be ...etc etc.

Or go into any politics tab argument on fark and read teh full crazy.  Sure, maybe the farkers are trolls, some of them at any rate, but you know it's a reflection of sizable amounts of the populace.  That's why gay marriage is not permitted in some places, Pot is illegal as well as moonshine, the government wants to regulate what women are allowed to do with their bits, prostitution is illegal, cults are held in disdain while large cults are given discounts on everything from taxes to "dibs" on government surplus

But yeah, we have World of Warcraft and Angry birds, so it really is a great world we live in!  Imagine the game's we'll have in 100 years!

But as I said, those "advances" are merely local phenomenon.  The middle-east is rife with constant warfare, no better than it was in ages past, but the weaponry is better, and several debatably nutjob rulers looking to expand into WMD territory.

All that and more....  I will always see that sunny optimism as posessing a bit of naivette, especially so in the face of all that.  Sure, at times it can be noble, but is often not very realistic, and therefore results in much more depression when things inevitably go fubar.

A pessimist has the advantage of being right a lot of the time, and even when he's wrong it's a good thing.  Sure, hope for the best, we all do that, but if we don't plan for the worst, there's a problem.

That's why I've grown apathetic to the point of, "fark it, let it warm up a little"  We can't hash out any real problems as it is, why does anyone hold out any real hope for thwarting this avalanche that is the state of the atmosphere.

I would wager the problem lies in that we're spread too thin, and argue over the pettiest of things sometimes.  We need something to unify, a commonality that we can all recognize to help us limp past our differences.  God won't show up, Aliens probably won't(unless you believe probe victims), we haven't found any decent common cause for ourselves because we can't get past all of life's other distractions.  AGW certainly isn't motivation enough, save the planet, or whales, or fuzzy chipmunks does not work.

Legislate it and people will grow irate.  It does fly in the face of some of our concepts of freedom and liberty.

Even in these threads, one can't even appear to voice a very similar but a bit different opinion without being treated like the anti-christ.  The behavior here is an example of how low humanity has really gone.

All of the above crap going on plus what I didn't think to mention, and we wonder why they snap and go on a crime spree of one sort or another, or seek solace in the company of a student, or eat until they're unable to make it out the door, or get addicted to vido games, "reality" tv, or my little pony as a means of escapism, or one of any given now typical Fark Main tab story...
 
2013-02-10 11:21:46 PM
That was longer than I thought.  Sorry to the tl:dr kiddies that couldn't make it through the blizzard to fill their adderal scrip.
 
2013-02-10 11:34:36 PM

omeganuepsilon: Aliens probably won't(unless you believe probe victims)


I honestly have no idea anymore if you're serious or joking.
 
2013-02-10 11:42:38 PM

HighZoolander: omeganuepsilon: Aliens probably won't(unless you believe probe victims)

I honestly have no idea anymore if you're serious or joking.


Well, if you had intended it I'd say you're smarter than I give you credit for.

My point was that I don't know what all you Believers buy into, so I admitted the possibility, however remote.
 
2013-02-10 11:59:22 PM

omeganuepsilon: HighZoolander: omeganuepsilon: Aliens probably won't(unless you believe probe victims)

I honestly have no idea anymore if you're serious or joking.

Well, if you had intended it I'd say you're smarter than I give you credit for.

My point was that I don't know what all you Believers buy into, so I admitted the possibility, however remote.


And that's exactly why people think you're crazy (well, aside from the whole pathologically anti-social shtick) - you admit remote possibilities for no good reason.
 
2013-02-11 12:00:40 AM

udhq:

Your beliefs do not entitle you to a separate, individualized version of objective reality. The denial of the Catholic Church had no affect on the objective reality of heliocentrism. The reality of climate change is completely indifferent to your efforts to make it an inevitably-lost culture war battleground.

NOBODY is entitled to a separate objective reality.  Hence, YOUR reality is bound by the science which falsified AGW, too.

 
2013-02-11 01:04:19 AM

HighZoolander: you admit remote possibilities for no good reason.


You have severe issues with reading comprehension.  Go back and read the whole paragraph, not just the tiny portion that you cherry picked.

I was speaking of events that could align all humanity towards a common goal.  War between eachother is no longer good enough to unite an entire nation(IE the contrast between Hitler era vs say, anything within our current events of the last decade or two, hell, even within this thread there is dissention towards the WMD's in iraq, despite Saddam being a letch), much less the entire planet.  It would take something other worldly, magical, or apocalyptic to wake people up on the scale you people pretend is possible.

You'd have to shake the shiat out of them.
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-11 01:09:16 AM

Jack_Knopf:

Warmers have their thousands of scientists. Deniers have their thousands of scientits.


Scientits?   Cool.

But, it's not as divergent as one might think.  Most of the science involves proving a couple different things:  that the planet has been warming for a few hundred years -- and it has; that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air is going up -- and it is; and that most of the increase in carbon dioxide is anthropogenic -- and it is.  All science in these fields can be perfectly legit with no problem.


Where problems DO develop is in the global data archives, and those attempts to tie the carbon dioxide to the warming.  And, even many of these papers can also be utterly legit -- if they use the climate models as their reference; not accurate, but legitimate.  The area where good science would be anathema to the political goals is in OBSERVATIONAL determination of atmospheric sensitivity to carbon dioxide.  Interestingly enough, most of the papers in this area are post-climategate, and the ability to stifle research has decreased significantly since all sorts of people began watching climate science.  Also, of course, all of the papers in this field I have seen have determined a number for climate sensitivity that is WAY below the IPCC's estimate range.


Even those scientists and bureaucrats who have been corrupting the science are beginning to see that the light at the end of the tunnel is an onrushing train.  Leaked copies of this year's IPCC report indicate that the IPCC is finally acknowledging the actual science, and backing WAY off of their more outrageously alarmist claims.  THIS will be the IPCC report to read.

 
2013-02-11 01:21:26 AM

Jack_Knopf:

Jack_Knopf: cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: cameroncrazy1984: Jack_Knopf: HighZoolander: radiovox: As we all know, science has NEVER been wrong. Ever. No one has ever manipulated data. No scientist has ever lied.

So, you're taking the position that tens of thousands of scientists are lying?

Oh wow...people wonder why there are skeptics. It's because people throw around asshat charts like that.

Because you don't like reality?

Because your belief equals fact equals reality. Good argument.

It's not my belief. It's the scientific findings of thousands of independent people around the world.

Warmers have their thousands of scientists. Deniers have their thousands of scientits.

Boobies

2.bp.blogspot.com

What scientits might look like

 
2013-02-11 01:38:49 AM

GeneralJim: Leaked copies of this year's IPCC report indicate that the IPCC is finally acknowledging the actual science, and backing WAY off of their more outrageously alarmist claims.


Above I noted that I'm not calling scientists(at large) alarmists, but there are some claims made that were indeed alarmist.

Wasn't there some snow capped mountains that were supposed to have melted by now, and yet, have not?
(Also made by the same guy who, iirc, had some controversy surface over how he spend funds)

( A simple highlight, there are tons of such predictions that have flopped, just hit up google)

Anyhow, here's a good read.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.htm l

and the follow-up

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenying q- anything.html

If James farking Randi gets to say "I did not say that", sure as shiat it's a legitimate argument, lol.

Alarmist deniers(Ie those who deny a skeptic can exist) can kiss my ass.

Live in ignorance?  Yeah, we ALL have the time and resources to go through the data and methodology ourselves...You all cry ignorance on this matter as if it's some type of sin...

This is one of the few times on fark that I'll ever do this.  What are your qualifications, alarmists?
That you can do a quick 5 second google and see a number of how many scientists agree?

Puh-leeze.
 
2013-02-11 01:55:10 AM

GeneralJim: Wolf_Blitzer: The reason we currently have glacial-interglacial cycles is that geological processes (mostly reduction of greenhouse gases, but also continental configuration) cooled the planet to the point that Milankovitch cycles could produce fluctuations in continental ice cover. At higher levels of CO2, orbital changes don't produce glaciation, which is something we see in the older geologic records, when the planet was warmer.

And THIS is where keeping up with the science would be good -- also, don't just get your information from sources guaranteed to support your position.  </i>


Such as the scientific literature, hm? I'll explain further down.


GeneralJim: The reason we are in a geologic ice age now is because of cosmic ray flux.  Svensmark identified this some years back, and was told that the process he envisions is not possible, according to the laws of physics.


Outright false. There's even a section in the IPCC AR4 discussing this possible mechanism. There's no need to make things up.


GeneralJim: Experiments done at CERN last year proved him correct.  These findings are so devastating to the AGW hypothesis supported by, among others, the people who fund CERN, that CERN scientists were ordered not to discuss how the findings of their CLOUD experiment relate to climate science.  As I understand it, this is the first time scientists there have been ordered to shut up.
AGW has already been falsified, and, speaking scientifically, is dead.  But, despite the fact of AGW's demise, its zombie corpse continues to roam, trying to shore up the continuing power-grab by governments.  And, of course, there are lots of useful idiots out there willing to soldier on in the name of planet-saving.


Outright false. The CLOUD experiment, while interesting, only addressed one part of the possible mechanism you're talking about. For instance, the difference in cosmic rays used were about an order of magnitude larger than what is seen outside of the lab:

i55.tinypic.com
Not to mention that the trend in cosmic rays has remained flat, indicating that it may not be responsible for the current warming trend.

If you're going to misrepresent the results of this study, should heed this guy's warnings on this exact subject:

GeneralJim:
leehouse:
So as I said, no one should break out the jump to conclusions mat.

Agreed. But, be fair. That's the ONLY furniture some people have...
 
2013-02-11 02:07:07 AM

Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Wolf_Blitzer: The reason we currently have glacial-interglacial cycles is that geological processes (mostly reduction of greenhouse gases, but also continental configuration) cooled the planet to the point that Milankovitch cycles could produce fluctuations in continental ice cover. At higher levels of CO2, orbital changes don't produce glaciation, which is something we see in the older geologic records, when the planet was warmer.

And THIS is where keeping up with the science would be good -- also, don't just get your information from sources guaranteed to support your position.  </i>

Such as the scientific literature, hm? I'll explain further down.


Here's the explanation:


GeneralJim: The area where good science would be anathema to the political goals is in OBSERVATIONAL determination of atmospheric sensitivity to carbon dioxide.  Interestingly enough, most of the papers in this area are post-climategate, and the ability to stifle research has decreased significantly since all sorts of people began watching climate science.  Also, of course, all of the papers in this field I have seen have determined a number for climate sensitivity that is WAY below the IPCC's estimate range.


Of course, the IPCC report incorporates observationally-derived and bounded estimates of climate sensitivity:

ipcc.ch

From here, and is just the estimates from observed 20th century warming (not including estimates from paleoclimate). This strongly suggests you've never even glanced at the IPCC AR4, or indeed much of the literature on the subject at all.

I highly suggest you follow your own advice and "don't just get your information from sources guaranteed to support your position". Perhaps glance at the scientific literature that you're attempting to talk about.
 
2013-02-11 02:16:55 AM

udhq:

Because even with google at your disposal, you can't name a single scientist who has consistantly denied the conclusions of climate science without taking money from the energy industry.

And you can't name a single scientist who has consistently supported the conclusions of official climate science without taking money from government.  The point?

If money corrupts, environmental groups contribute ten times what oil companies do, and government contributes ten times as much as environmental groups.  If the 1% of money in climate research that is contributed by oil companies corrupts, wouldn't the 99% of the money corrupt 99 times as much?

 
2013-02-11 03:14:47 AM

Xcott:

You can't really settle an issue like climate change by counting scientists (deniers create inflated lists of "scientists," like the Global Warming Petition Project) or by tying credibility to funding sources. What you must do instead is observe the consensus in the form of publications based on published evidence. This clearly shows a consensus for human-induced climate change, regardless of who took money from what industry.


The rest of this post was rather good -- but the last paragraph really drops the ball.  Science is not about "observing the consensus" at all.  If ten thousand scientists "believe" something, and ONE scientist tests the hypothesis, and falsifies it, it's false.  AGW has been falsified, at least that part of it which suggests that there is some danger associated with it.
 
2013-02-11 03:22:13 AM

Repo Man:

Weather anomalies have always happened, but there comes a point where, combined with the evidence of ever increasing CO2, other greenhouse gases, and long term temperature trends, that to continue to deny it gets ridiculous. No matter how overwhelming the evidence is, some people will never accept it. No reasonable person doubts the theory of evolution, but plenty of unreasonable people sure do.

What about the large, and growing, body of evidence suggesting that early estimates of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide were grossly inflated?  Are you willing to ignore that?  Historical evidence PROVES that periods of warming, like the one we are in, are quite common, INCLUDING the speed with which we warmed from the late 1970s until about 1997.  Charting trends shows that we were warming at about the same rate long before the industrial revolution, and that the rate has not noticeably changed since then.  It's all part of an approximately 800 year warming trend which is clearly visible.  If we had STOPPED warming, it would be reasonable evidence for human causation.  What is unreasonable is assuming that an ongoing change flipped over and became human caused.
 
2013-02-11 03:45:14 AM

omeganuepsilon:

Repo Man: long term temperature trends, that to continue to deny it gets ridiculous.

Putting it in those words made me wonder...  The "trend" is not an actual temperature, but highly processed averages of temperatures, using imagination where there is laking information.(IE a "global" temperature "average" is not attainable in an ice core, cores are only available on certain parts of the globe)

What I wonder about, is if you would actually see a "trend" if you took not a questionable average, but picked a place, measured it's actual temperature every july 4th. You could do this for any given date, or multiple dates within the same year(only for comparison with eachother, IE all the summer dates from each year, and all the spring dates from each year, etc) Sure, if it's cloudy/rainy on the 4th take the nearest typical hot day.

Iron out the process(which is just off the top of my head mind you), and then apply it to multiple points across the globe.  This way you're dealing with actual information, nor averages and estimations.

Of course, I'm not curious enough to actually look into doing such a thing, but it's an interesting thought.

Well, at least you THINK about this stuff, rather than just going to a list of talking points.  What you are suggesting here would be useful -- except for a couple of things.  First, and foremost, we already have that -- it started in 1979, and it is a global temperature reading from satellites in space.  Sadly, one of the important things about the satellites is that they broadcast their data, so the data can be harvested by anyone with a medium quality receiver of the correct type.  With an unknown number of copies of the data floating around, it becomes essentially impossible to alter the data without it becoming known instantly.  With the land stations, one can manipulate and play with the individual data, and pretty much make it look like whatever one wants.  And, LOTS of shady things have been done with the stations, and their data, and a frightening number of the stations -- 89% of a testing of approximately two-thirds of the stations -- do not meet the internal requirements for siting within NOAA.

Part of the reason for that is a reason which would apply to your "project" as well.  Locations change over time.  If you set up a weather station in an open meadow, and take readings, and ten years later a shopping mall surrounds it, with asphalt (tarmac) all around it, and hot air from air conditioners blowing on it, your temperature readings will change for THAT reason, irrespective of what the climate is doing.


But, the satellite record evens out everything.  You get a good snapshot of global temperature, and, literally, it is the only real global temperature reading we have.  Everything else is a set of point readings, which scientists attempt to process to get a reasonable figure for planetary temperature.  As I see it, one might as well use proxies for all times prior to 1979, and leave it at that.  And, what does the temperature look like since 1979?   Here you go:


i46.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-11 03:53:35 AM

maxheck:

And sometimes an indefensible opinion is... an indefensible opinion. Saying "I think all Jews should be burned in ovens just because they're jews." is the sort of thing that you'd REALLY have to back up if you were to defend it. On a less (ahem) inflammatory level, saying that the bulk of scientists who actually study the problem are all socialist/communist/co-conspiracsts... well..

And could you point out someone who has said this?  I don't recall seeing it on Fark ANYWHERE, except when incredibly lazy thinkers, such as yourself, choose to argue against this position, rather than the position that a poster has posted.  Not all people who are skeptical of AGW believe that ANYONE is corrupt.  I, however, DO believe there are corrupt scientists.  However, I'm pretty sure the number is a dozen, tops, probably fewer.  Although, I will give you a couple points for saying "the bulk of" rather than "all" in your imaginary position taken by nobody.
 
2013-02-11 04:05:09 AM

maxheck:

Do you have any evidence that the entire body of climatology is either A) lying for whatever reason or B) somehow dumb and wrong somehow all in the same direction?

Holy moley!   You can't even avoid derping when you're asking a question.  A: No, it is a very small number of people lying.  B: No, it is NOT dumb to make an educated guess as a hypothesis, and start working from there.  That was done.  Since then, we have learned about the effects of cosmic rays on temperature via albedo, and we have MEASURED atmospheric sensitivity to carbon dioxide, and find that the first estimates were significantly high, mostly due to assigning the cosmic ray amplification of insolation to greenhouse gasses.  It's simply time to update our hypotheses, and move on.  However, the new information shows that there is nothing to panic about, and governments DEARLY wanted something to panic people into giving them more power.  So, they are fighting for the falsified hypothesis. Also, as further evidence, the models used for predictions have all predicted much more warming than has been seen. THAT is evidence that SOMETHING significant was missed.
 
2013-02-11 04:12:15 AM

udhq:

You see, a "skeptic" is someone who doubts a particular conclusion due to a lack of evidence. Denial of climate science is a position that exists independent of the evidence and independent of objective reality. It's a belief. It's dogma.

Bollocks. The freaking planet is giving you evidence that AGW is wrong, by ignoring what the models say. The pattern of carbon dioxide and temperature variation seen in the ice cores proves that the temperature LEADS the carbon dioxide, and the pattern proves that the net feedback in that loop is negative. AGW requires a huge POSITIVE feedback to work. And, finally, MEASURING the atmosphere's sensitivity to carbon dioxide shows that carbon dioxide level changes have incredibly little effect on planetary temperature. Now, with the science directly contradicting the IPCC's claims, what does it mean when you have faith in the IPCC?
 
2013-02-11 05:21:06 AM

beta_plus: Remember guys - global warming causes cold weather and snow.

/this is what liberals actually believe



Wow, you're dumb.
 
2013-02-11 10:55:35 AM

GeneralJim: The rest of this post was rather good -- but the last paragraph really drops the ball. Science is not about "observing the consensus" at all. If ten thousand scientists "believe" something, and ONE scientist tests the hypothesis, and falsifies it, it's false.


In fact, this is false:  the history of science is littered with experimental results from ONE scientist that could not be replicated.  One scientist was able to show that water had homeopathic memory, and then nobody could replicate it---so do we reject all of atomic theory, or do we dismiss the ONE experiment?

For all the confirmation of the theory of relativity, we have some nuts on conservapedia.com who are convinced they "falsified" it with some thought experiment.  Do we reject relativity because ONE person claims to have done so?

The reality is that you need much more than one dude's data to overturn established fact.  You need an observed phenomenon that is undeniable, e.g. observed and confirmed by multiple experimenters, and without an alternate explanation.
 
2013-02-11 11:05:00 AM

omeganuepsilon: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.htm l

and the follow-up

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenying q- anything.html


James Randi was fooled by the "Global Warming Petition Project," and in his follow-up he admits that he was fooled.  I'm a bit surprised, because Randi is familiar with other denial movements, that also create fake journals and fake lists of scientists.

I received a mailing from GWPP a few years back.  It included a "journal article" which was written by the same people who created the petition project, in a bogus journal they invented just for this purpose, so they could claim it was a peer-reviewed journal article.  It was a targeted mailing, complete with SASE and a form for me to sign.  It was well-organized but clearly deceptive.

As I said, it's the same with other denial movements.  Holocaust deniers have a fake "Journal of Historical Review," and now 9/11 truthers have a "Journal of 9/11 studies."  They form organizations like the Institute for Historical Review or Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth or the "Discovery Institute."  Anything to make them look like part of the scientific or academic community.
 
2013-02-11 11:12:02 AM

omeganuepsilon: It would take something other worldly, magical, or apocalyptic to wake people up on the scale you people pretend is possible.


We need an apocalyptic event to get people to reduce pollution?!

Okay, so what world-wide apocalyptic event gave us the clean air act, and all our previous measures to clean up the environment?  What otherworldly magical event motivated the Kyoto protocols?  Apparently some shambling monstrosity fell to earth from another dimension and we all said, "damn, let's all come together as a species and form the EPA!"

I guess that's what happens when your understanding of science and history comes from "just hit up google."  And if you read Watchmen while snorting bath salts.
 
2013-02-11 12:06:48 PM

GeneralJim: Xcott: You can't really settle an issue like climate change by counting scientists (deniers create inflated lists of "scientists," like the Global Warming Petition Project) or by tying credibility to funding sources. What you must do instead is observe the consensus in the form of publications based on published evidence. This clearly shows a consensus for human-induced climate change, regardless of who took money from what industry.

The rest of this post was rather good -- but the last paragraph really drops the ball.  Science is not about "observing the consensus" at all.  If ten thousand scientists "believe" something, and ONE scientist tests the hypothesis, and falsifies it, it's false.  AGW has been falsified, at least that part of it which suggests that there is some danger associated with it.



This is worth addressing - you're both right. GeneralJim, you're right in an absolute sense, but what you're talking about is just very, very unlikely. Especially given that your willingness to actually read the scientific literature is very, very limited, some reliance on expert opinion is warranted.
 
2013-02-11 12:15:22 PM

GeneralJim: Repo Man:

Weather anomalies have always happened, but there comes a point where, combined with the evidence of ever increasing CO2, other greenhouse gases, and long term temperature trends, that to continue to deny it gets ridiculous. No matter how overwhelming the evidence is, some people will never accept it. No reasonable person doubts the theory of evolution, but plenty of unreasonable people sure do.

What about the large, and growing, body of evidence suggesting that early estimates of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide were grossly inflated?


Not quite true - what there is a handful of studies, a small number compared to mainstream estimates.


GeneralJim: Are you willing to ignore that?


It's difficult to ignore something that isn't true. However, why are you willing to ignore the majority of mainstream estimates of climate sensitivity?


GeneralJim: Historical evidence PROVES that periods of warming, like the one we are in, are quite common, INCLUDING the speed with which we warmed from the late 1970s until about 1997.  Charting trends shows that we were warming at about the same rate long before the industrial revolution, and that the rate has not noticeably changed since then.  It's all part of an approximately 800 year warming trend which is clearly visible.  If we had STOPPED warming, it would be reasonable evidence for human causation.  What is unreasonable is assuming that an ongoing change flipped over and became human caused.


t2.gstatic.com

The point is about evidence - throwing out a few unsupported claims really doesn't make your case any stronger.
 
2013-02-11 12:24:36 PM

GeneralJim: udhq:

You see, a "skeptic" is someone who doubts a particular conclusion due to a lack of evidence. Denial of climate science is a position that exists independent of the evidence and independent of objective reality. It's a belief. It's dogma.

Bollocks. The freaking planet is giving you evidence that AGW is wrong, by ignoring what the models say. The pattern of carbon dioxide and temperature variation seen in the ice cores proves that the temperature LEADS the carbon dioxide,



False, and you know it:

i50.tinypic.com
a, The global proxy temperature stack (blue) as deviations from the early Holocene (11.5-6.5kyr ago) mean, an Antarctic ice-core composite temperature record42 (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (refs 12, 13; yellow dots). The Holocene, Younger Dryas (YD), Bølling-Allerød (B-A), Oldest Dryas (OD) and Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) intervals are indicated. Error bars, 1σ (Methods); p.p.m.v., parts per million by volume. b, The phasing of CO2 concentration and temperature for the global (grey), Northern Hemisphere (NH; blue) and Southern Hemisphere (SH; red) proxy stacks based on lag correlations from 20-10kyr ago in 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations (Methods). The mean and 1σ of the histograms are given. CO2 concentration leads the global temperature stack in 90% of the simulations and lags it in 6%.

From Shakun et al. 2012
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.htm l

GeneralJim: AGW requires a huge POSITIVE feedback to work. And, finally, MEASURING the atmosphere's sensitivity to carbon dioxide shows that carbon dioxide level changes have incredibly little effect on planetary temperature. Now, with the science directly contradicting the IPCC's claims, what does it mean when you have faith in the IPCC?


False, as I pointed out earlier.

What does it mean if you misrepresent the scientific literature and the research reviewed by the IPCC?
 
2013-02-11 12:37:57 PM

Xcott: so what world-wide apocalyptic event gave us the clean air act


Legislation(what you are talking about) =/= voluntary effort from the collective whole (What I was talking about)

Seriously, if you want to discuss a topic, try reading AND understanding what you reply to.  If you cannot do that, ever thought of just not replying?
 
2013-02-11 12:54:58 PM

omeganuepsilon: Xcott: so what world-wide apocalyptic event gave us the clean air act

Legislation(what you are talking about) =/= voluntary effort from the collective whole (What I was talking about)


In that case, WTF are you talking about?  "Voluntary effort from the collective whole?"  Why the fark do you need that to reduce carbon emissions?

We can substantially reduce emissions though energy policy regardless of whether all of humanity decides to come together because great Cthulu rose from the ocean.  If you want to spend all day masturbating to QVC videos, we can still reduce your carbon footprint by regulating how your power is generated, and we don't need your help to do this.  You can still be some wackity nihilist posting blog-O-posts about how humanity needs to collapse, and we can succeed despite your general disinterest in civilization.

It's not that freakin' hard.  For example, it's been estimated that a solar array able to meet the world's energy budget---including vehicles---could be built in the desert of NM or AZ at a cost roughly equalling that of the Interstate Highway System.  That's a lot, but obviously we did it before without requiring great Cthulu to fall out of the sky.  This doesn't solve the problem of how you can transmit the power or power vehicles, but the fact is that a lot of our carbon problems are about 1 Interstate Highway System away from being solved.  With the right leadership we can do that, while you whine on the Internet about how civilization is impossible (thanks to the civilization that built the ARPANET, I might add.)
 
2013-02-11 01:30:56 PM

udhq:

So, you accept climate change but reject any sort of action to combat it. Explain again how is that not the worst of all possible conclusions to draw?

It gets dark every night, and on nights with no moon visible where I am, it's REALLY dark.  And then, in the morning, it gets light.  What are you going to do to combat this?
 
2013-02-11 01:35:26 PM

udhq:

And no, "I'm not an alarmist" is not a position, it's a negative. I'm not an alarmist either. Being alarmed does not make one an alarmist. Climate change has already begun mass human displacement (google the Carteret Islands resettlement). If you're not alarmed, it's only because you're not paying attention.

To repeat what you said in different words, "I'm not an alarmist, and you should be one, too."
 
2013-02-11 01:35:56 PM

Xcott: In that case, WTF are you talking about?


Try reading the thread again Sparky, you missed a few things.  To take your own words...

Xcott: It's not that freakin' hard.


A lot of people( a couple voiced in this in the thread) have a problem with legislation making choices for how we live life.

Xcott: regulating how your power is generated, and we don't need your help to do this.


See, that's the disturbing part.

Xcott: meet the world's energy budget---including vehicles---


So I cannot drive my 15mpg mustang?  I thought this could be done without my help, you'll have to pass legislation to get people to not drive their vehicle of preference, because a lot of people won't give that up willingly...and then we get to that controversial bit about legislation again.

How many electric trains, boats, and airplanes does the world have at it's disposal?  How many millions of people's lives depend on our current model of CO2 emissions?

Xcott: This doesn't solve the problem of how you can transmit the power or power vehicles, but the fact is that a lot of our carbon problems are about 1 Interstate Highway System away from being solved.


False.
That is a self contradicting statement, basically admitting to oversimplification with that first segment, but claiming cold hard fact with the second.

Logistics/structure development is expensive.  You're going to have to pipe that power from regions with good sun to those without, not to mention replace the vehicles en mass like I hint at above, to include semi trucks, freight planes and boats, etc.
(And what about things like military vehicles?  Can hardly replace an Apache / C-130 gunship with green-friendly electricity and the rainbows you purport to be able to pull out of your ass)
Fabrication of materials is expensive monetarily and as far as pollution/CO2 goes, to include obtaining raw materials for the entire set-up IE more dirty mining.  Not to mention the repercussions of fabricating solar cells on that scale.
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/science/article_37811382-9d69-5936-ad eb -5db1395225e3.html

And that's just the problems inherent with doing such a system within one nation.  Now imagine doing so on a global scale.  Good luck getting China to go along with your schemes, or Worst Korea, or the Middle East at large.

Your argument is a fallacy in two ways.
1. You're still reducing my philosophy to absurdity. To add to that you're effectively building straw men out of the argument at large, which actually boils down to you having a problem with my moral view of how humanity would greatly benefit from banding together(and anything short of that is putting a bandaid on a broken limb), or conversely, my problem with your moral view that it's OK to force people to do X. You dance around that argument as if it's not even arguable, which is highly entertaining in it's obviousness.

2. You're oversimplifying your own solution, possibly the same flaw in rational thought that leads you to reduce other arguments into an absurd notion.

Of course, you can't expect much from someone who will argue up and down that private and privacy are two completely irrelevant words(which is why I had you on ignore in the first place, so thanks for justifying that decision with your ludicrous behavior and arguing techniques).
 
2013-02-11 01:51:26 PM

GeneralJim: udhq: So, you accept climate change but reject any sort of action to combat it. Explain again how is that not the worst of all possible conclusions to draw?
It gets dark every night, and on nights with no moon visible where I am, it's REALLY dark.  And then, in the morning, it gets light.  What are you going to do to combat this?


Huh, I couldn't think of a way that was so simple he stood a chance of understanding it.  Good Jorb.

/still an outside chance

To paraphrase my stance in light of that.

I see no reason to fear warming.  I see it as a damned if you do, damned if you don't.  We drastically reduce CO2 now, people suffer.  We do it when we run out, people suffer.  We hit a critical event of climate change(barrier reef and therefore a lot of sea-life dying, for example), people suffer. It's not like we'll warm up to the point all life on the planet dies, and becomes something like Mars, the plateau will be well within boundaries to sustain a LOT of life on the planet, including us.

Similarly, some people are afraid of the dark, but I am not.  I see no reason to fear it, so when someone who does fear it and suggests we do something, namely legislation, about avoiding the Big Bad Dark, I laugh in their face.

Sure work on electric cars, and some cleaner energy.  That's your lamps in the house and your "security" My Little Pony night light.

Don't try to force everyone to live by your moral code though, within the scope of your opinions, prejudices, and beliefs, because at the point when you start passing laws, you make criminals out of people that don't live in the way you approve.  It's not right when religion does it, it's not right when tyrants do it, it's not right when any given race does it, it's not right when you do it.
 
2013-02-11 01:53:52 PM

omeganuepsilon:

Wow, look at them crawl out of the woodwork. So many fallacies, so little time.

Yeah, it's a debate tactic called a "spread negative" defense.  When a valid, damaging point is made by the opponents, a debater will sometimes raise a "spread negative" defense.  This is generally done by the person on the team who can talk the fastest.  On a typed forum, that's not so important, and many clowns can ride in the same car.  But, in a debate, one's whole time is spent bringing up useless objections, and LOTS of them, one after the other, as fast as one can speak.  Here, anyone not following the "official line" is gang-tackled, heckled, and accused of dishonesty.  That way, they're tied up dealing with a bunch of pointless accusations, and NOT writing about the science, which clearly (and more clearly each month) shows that it is simply not possible that humans are contributing more than a barely noticeable amount to the current, natural warming period.  An on-line extension of this is that a continuous drumbeat of negative posts are made, and then, should the original poster have other things to do, sleep, for instance, declare them a coward running away, and gloat that objections remain unanswered.  It's like high school debate, with an order of magnitude lower standards.
 
2013-02-11 02:00:02 PM

maxheck:

Coming from a guy who believes that Jesus was a laser... I'd say Hypothesis is a step up.

Excellent.  So, your ignorance is not limited to climatology.  Just how far DOES it extend?

/ And, dude, WTF?


 
2013-02-11 02:13:35 PM

udhq:

Cue the Futurama alien newscaster: "Evidence does not work that way".

Data are not true or false. What's falsifiable are the conclusions that the data point to.


In this case, you happen to be accidentally right: You can't prove the conclusions of climate science to be false for the simple but key reason that they have already been proven to be true.

Holy Lord...  "Data are not true or false."   Okay...  What would you call data that were manufactured, or changed after the fact, then?

And, speaking of "does not work that way..."  Science does not prove things true.  Science proves things wrong.  If science fails to prove a hypothesis wrong after long and diligent testing, it is tentatively assumed to be true, subject to immediate falsification, should some test of it fail.  Like AGW -- the models consistently fail to predict temperature, and all fail from predicting a temperature too high.  The actual temperature goes out of the error bars on the bottom.  THAT falsifies AGW.  The records of ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW temperature, and that no positive feedback takes place.  THAT falsifies AGW.  And recent measurements of the atmosphere's sensitivity to carbon dioxide show a sensitivity WAY lower than necessary for AGW predictions to be meaningful.  THAT falsifies AGW.

But, to be clear, this does NOT prove that people aren't changing the climate -- it only falsifies the idea that our carbon dioxide emissions are having a significant effect on climate.

 
2013-02-11 02:18:19 PM

GeneralJim: It's like high school debate, with an order of magnitude lower standards.


That's one of the best summations of what fark has become that I've ever seen.

GeneralJim: That way, they're tied up dealing with a bunch of pointless accusations, and NOT writing about the science


Wasn't always so popular here.

Sad what Fark has devolved into.  It used to be a place where a person could participate and learn about a topic, where superior knowledge was sharedand discussed.  The newer trend to flaunt (supposedly) superior knowledge often baseless and without any effort of citation, is just sad.

A reflection of the times I suppose.
 
2013-02-11 02:24:49 PM

omeganuepsilon: Xcott: It's not that freakin' hard.

A lot of people( a couple voiced in this in the thread) have a problem with legislation making choices for how we live life.


Yeah, well too bad you live in a farkin' democracy.  You have a problem with people spending public money to create the trappings of civilization?  Move to an island and make your own Internet out of rocks.  

Xcott: regulating how your power is generated, and we don't need your help to do this.

See, that's the disturbing part.


Why is that disturbing?  Wouldn't the converse be disturbing?  Wouldn't it be far more disturbing if we couldn't improve the efficiency of the power grid because one of the customers decided that he was like totally a nihilist?

If reducing pollution somehow conflicts with your sense of personal liberty, that doesn't mean that your electricity provider is obligated to burn extra coal to respect your beliefs.   There's nothing wrong with everyone else moving forward if you don't want to participate.

Xcott: meet the world's energy budget---including vehicles---

So I cannot drive my 15mpg mustang?  I thought this could be done without my help,


On average, it will.  You will drive your 15mpg mustang, but most people won't.  Most people already drive vehicles with higher mileage and better emissions than a 15mpg mustang---despite your thought experiment proving that it can't happen.

1. You're still reducing my philosophy to absurdity.

By quoting it?  That should tell you something.
 
2013-02-11 02:25:46 PM

HighZoolander:

I agree. Let's just abolish laws altogether and let people sort everything out for themselves. Who wants to live on a planet when people are forced not to rape/pillage/plunder one another? Because that's exactly what would happen if we took even one small step towards this Darwinian (totally non-delusional) utopia you advocate.

Interesting you should mention this...  Sometimes, "civilization" works against us.  A quick example.  In a troop of monkeys, if one of them does something offensive to the group, a bunch of the larger males will take the offender off a ways, and pound on them until they quit moving.  This is repeated as necessary.  Eventually, some of the "enforcers" will get tired of dealing with the same rat-bag individual, and will be more enthusiastic about the pounding, and keep at it until the stoppage of movement becomes permanent.  And, over time, a collective wisdom has built up, such that problems with individuals, like the desire to rape or kill an infant, will result in the permanent treatment the first time.  We're too "civilized" to take pedophiles who molest children out and beat them to death.  But, locking them up for a while, and then letting them go does not serve the purpose of protecting the young as well as beating the pedophiles to death does -- apparently, pedophilia cannot be cured.  We should not give up methods that work before we have a replacement that works.
 
2013-02-11 02:30:14 PM

Damnhippyfreak:

As pointed out to you many times, this line of reasoning only works if you somehow believe that only one factor can affect temperature at any given time, or that different factors are somehow mutually exclusive.

Which is, of course, the claim that was being made, and which I was refuting.  This is the first of your dishonest nit-picks.  It is the only one to which I will respond.  I probably won't even read them.  You are a tar baby, and I'm not going to wrestle with you.
 
2013-02-11 02:34:33 PM

Xcott: Yeah, well too bad you live in a farkin' democracy.


By that logic, if the majority voted that you should just stop breathing, you'd be OK with it.

/The US is a Republic, by the way.

http://thisnation.com/question/011.html
 
2013-02-11 02:38:52 PM

SVenus:

Damnhippyfreak: this line of reasoning only works if you somehow believe that only one factor can affect temperature at any given time, or that different factors are somehow mutually exclusive.

I found THIS part of a climate lecture educational
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVCps_SwD5w&feature=youtu.be&t=29m26s

Of course, watching the entire video puts it in context.

You know, I'd really like to know where he got the data for carbon dioxide and temperature from that A.D. 2020-2100 range.  It is model output -- from the same models which have been clueless about temperature so far.  Of COURSE models designed with using the idea that carbon dioxide leads temperature will show carbon dioxide leading temperature.  This is circular reasoning of Biblical dimension -- that is, it's as bad as "The Bible is the infallible word of God because it says so in the Bible, and the Bible is the infallible word of God because...."  The model says that the assumptions built into the model are correct?

The climate WILL NOT follow those predictions.

 
2013-02-11 02:42:53 PM

omeganuepsilon: Xcott: Yeah, well too bad you live in a farkin' democracy.

By that logic, if the majority voted that you should just stop breathing, you'd be OK with it.


What are you, 13?  So your objection to representative democracy is that the government could in theory vote that everyone has to stop breathing?
 
2013-02-11 02:48:40 PM

udhq:

My first question was whether this screed was against climate change, or just AGW, but it's just so disjointed and schizophrenic that I'm not sure we can assign that level of intent to this word salad.


/I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

So, you've got nothing.  I understand.
 
2013-02-11 02:48:49 PM
My objection to democracy is that a majority of people can be, and at times, very much are, stupid.
 
2013-02-11 02:50:27 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: As pointed out to you many times, this line of reasoning only works if you somehow believe that only one factor can affect temperature at any given time, or that different factors are somehow mutually exclusive.
Which is, of course, the claim that was being made, and which I was refuting.  This is the first of your dishonest nit-picks.  It is the only one to which I will respond.  I probably won't even read them.  You are a tar baby, and I'm not going to wrestle with you.


Indeed, you are not able to easily make the claims you do if you're confronted with actual evidence.
 
2013-02-11 02:53:48 PM
udhq:
Seems legit.....
Yep, it is.  CERN confirmed the process.  Watch and learn.
 
2013-02-11 03:20:53 PM

omeganuepsilon:

Above I noted that I'm not calling scientists(at large) alarmists, but there are some claims made that were indeed alarmist.

Wasn't there some snow capped mountains that were supposed to have melted by now, and yet, have not?

Yeah, it has the name of "Himalayagate" now.  It involves a reasonably common practice -- The IPCC claims that it only publishes peer-reviewed literature, but this bit, and many others, come from environmental activist literature.  In this, it was claimed that the Himalayas could be ice free by either 2030 or 2050, a pants-on-head retarded claim either way. Sadly, that's not the only time that crap got into the IPCC reports. And, it is worth noting that EVERY bit of corruption in IPCC reports is in the direction of environmental group literature making it into the report. I have seen NO evidence of oil company fiddling with the process.
 
2013-02-11 03:25:26 PM

Xcott:

In fact, this is false: the history of science is littered with experimental results from ONE scientist that could not be replicated. One scientist was able to show that water had homeopathic memory, and then nobody could replicate it---so do we reject all of atomic theory, or do we dismiss the ONE experiment?

You've made a mistake here, but it's a simple one to make.  If it is NOT repeatable, it is NOT science. That's why all the "I'll destroy the data before I let skeptics look at it.... Whoops, somehow I lost the original data" crap going on at the Hadley CRU is not science. If you don't have the data any more, or if your results are not repeatable, you are NOT doing science.
 
2013-02-11 03:29:40 PM

Xcott:

The reality is that you need much more than one dude's data to overturn established fact. You need an observed phenomenon that is undeniable, e.g. observed and confirmed by multiple experimenters, and without an alternate explanation.

No, that's not right.  If I am testing the hypothesis "All swans are white," the very first time I spot a black swan, that hypothesis is falsified.  One clear, repeatable instance which falsifies the hypothesis is sufficient to discard it.  Look up where the "parity hypothesis" was violated, just ONCE, repeatably, and falsified.
 
2013-02-11 03:59:46 PM

GeneralJim: You've made a mistake here, but it's a simple one to make.  If it is NOT repeatable, it is NOT science.


But how do we decide, without icky subjective "consensus," when an experiment is not repeatable?

For example, what if an experiment cannot be replicated buy others, and the experimenter claims that the others are purposely doing it wrong for political reasons?  What if an experiment cannot be replicated, but Internet crackpots invent a conspiracy theory that it was replicated but the data was secretly destroyed and replaced with fake data?  Or, what if that nutbag on conservapedia.com makes an error in his mathematics, but refuses to acknowledge it?

Crackpots, deniers and conspiracy theorists are not known for changing their minds in the face of evidence:  what if they insist that their claims haven't been debunked?  Then it is up to a consensus of scientists to conclude the likely case whether they are willing to admit it or not.

Even without politically motivated crackpots, it can be wickedly difficult to replicate an experiment.  There may be few people with the resources to do so, and there are many ways to perform an experimental protocol incorrectly.  It can take a Ph.D. level of training just to conduct a microbiology experiment, and a Ph.D. amount of time just to get it right.

We like to pretend that science is perfectly objective, that you can simply observe the orbital precession of Mercury and classical physics will just crash like MS Word.  In reality, it takes a lot of observation, and a consensus that it is legitimate, before people will overturn an established theory, and this inevitably involves a lot of human judgment.
 
2013-02-11 04:13:25 PM

Xcott:

James Randi was fooled by the "Global Warming Petition Project," and in his follow-up he admits that he was fooled. I'm a bit surprised, because Randi is familiar with other denial movements, that also create fake journals and fake lists of scientists.

Any complaints against the Petition Project also apply to the IPCC.  Most of the "thousands of scientists" mentioned by the IPCC are actually bureaucrats.  Also, the bureaucrats get to edit papers AFTER they have been "peer-reviewed," that is, those which actually ARE peer-reviewed.  Further, if, as is claimed, only 10% of the signers of the Petition are climate scientists, that means that 3,200 climate scientists have signed a petition saying that the IPCC is full of crap.  I mean, how many actual climate scientists ARE there?  That has to be a large percentage of them. There are 20,000 climate scientists in the American Geophysical Union. If that number is correct, then 16% of climatologists signed the Petition. And, no doubt many who agree with the Petition did not sign it. If this petition-signing event is like most others, probably most actual climate scientists disagree with the IPCC. Certainly, in ANY case, the "97%" number, or anything even close to it is bollocks. It's like unemployment -- people are not going back to work, so re-define who is in the workforce to eliminate a bunch of unemployed, and TA-DAH! The unemployment number goes down. Most people will not bother to look at WHY it went down.
 
2013-02-11 04:33:30 PM

omeganuepsilon:

My objection to democracy is that a majority of people can be, and at times, very much are, stupid.

I recall reading an article about being a republic in something published back in the late 1960s.  The discussion started about the race riots that kind of culminated with the Detroit race riots of 1967.  The author pointed out that after a few years of riots popping up in various cities, an unscientific poll was taken across the country, and the author made the point that, given the results of the survey, if the U.S.A. was a democracy, all African-Americans would have been shipped back to Africa.  Since we are a republic, that idiocy of the masses was not going to happen.
 
2013-02-11 04:40:24 PM

Xcott:

For example, what if an experiment cannot be replicated buy others, and the experimenter claims that the others are purposely doing it wrong for political reasons? What if an experiment cannot be replicated, but Internet crackpots invent a conspiracy theory that it was replicated but the data was secretly destroyed and replaced with fake data? Or, what if that nutbag on conservapedia.com makes an error in his mathematics, but refuses to acknowledge it?

Are you serious?   Repeatability is quite simply established.  If the issue is data, new data can be collected using the same methodology, and compared.  You objections amount to "what if someone lies?" pretty much.  Well, part of the process is to CATCH lies, like Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph, produced by a program that produces a hockey stick for almost any data input into it.
 
2013-02-11 08:03:21 PM

Cheron: Warming causes melt, melt increases water, increased water increases rain and snow, increased snow doesn't melt in summer causing glaciers, glaciers grow moving from the poles toward the equator in the latest ice age.


Worst drought in Iowa in my lifetime.

Seems reasonable to me to assert that the climate isnt "simply" warming.  It's also shifting.
 
2013-02-11 08:06:28 PM

omeganuepsilon: Xcott: Yeah, well too bad you live in a farkin' democracy.

By that logic, if the majority voted that you should just stop breathing, you'd be OK with it.

/The US is a Republic, by the way.

http://thisnation.com/question/011.html


de·moc·ra·cy/diˈmäkrəsē/NounA system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.A state governed in such a way./The US is a democracy, idiot.
 
2013-02-11 08:07:52 PM

LoneWolf343: omeganuepsilon: Xcott: Yeah, well too bad you live in a farkin' democracy.

By that logic, if the majority voted that you should just stop breathing, you'd be OK with it.

/The US is a Republic, by the way.

http://thisnation.com/question/011.html

de·moc·ra·cy
/diˈmäkrəsē/

Noun
1. A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
2. A state governed in such a way.

/The US is a democracy, idiot.


Fark ate my formatting for some reason.
 
2013-02-11 08:32:54 PM

LoneWolf343: The US is a democracy, idiot.


This goes a bit beyond dictionaries Sparky.

More of a functional encyclopedic knowledge is necessary to understand the discussion, maybe having better than a gradeschool education.

[[ Wiki on Democracy ]]
While no consensus exists on how to define democracy, equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. These principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its eligible citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.

The first bold part is quite important as it applies to the US is pretty plain in presidential elections. If you don't see that it's no longer a straight up voting game, I pity your uninformed state of being.  Is it that you are intellectually limited or led a sheltered life?
http://www.fark.com/comments/7557294/How-does-Rachel-Maddow-explain- ab surdity-of-Florida-By-using-Fark-of-course-skip-ahead-to-350

The second is also held in some controversy.  Our constitution doesn't really protect us as well as we might think.  100 miles from the border is contested now as a 4th amendment "free" zone, new gun laws in the works, TSA gropings, people quite randomly showing up on no fly lists, etc.

All without us as the people able to vote on them at all.

Also, from my previous link:

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths"
...
In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a "democracy." This is evident not only in the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance
[["and to the republic for which it stands." ]] but in the Constitution itself which declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (, Section 4). Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a  republic, not a democracy.

But whatever, enjoy your delusions.
 
2013-02-11 09:54:57 PM

omeganuepsilon: LoneWolf343: The US is a democracy, idiot.

This goes a bit beyond dictionaries Sparky.

More of a functional encyclopedic knowledge is necessary to understand the discussion, maybe having better than a gradeschool education.

[[ Wiki on Democracy ]]
While no consensus exists on how to define democracy, equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. These principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its eligible citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.

The first bold part is quite important as it applies to the US is pretty plain in presidential elections. If you don't see that it's no longer a straight up voting game, I pity your uninformed state of being.  Is it that you are intellectually limited or led a sheltered life?
http://www.fark.com/comments/7557294/How-does-Rachel-Maddow-explain- ab surdity-of-Florida-By-using-Fark-of-course-skip-ahead-to-350

The second is also held in some controversy.  Our constitution doesn't really protect us as well as we might think.  100 miles from the border is contested now as a 4th amendment "free" zone, new gun laws in the works, TSA gropings, people quite randomly showing up on no fly lists, etc.

All without us as the people able to vote on them at all.

Also, from my previous link:

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions ...


People vote, therefore it is a democracy. Spin as much as you want, but until people aren't voting anymore, it is a democracy. It's may be a democratic republic, but it is still a democracy.

Deal with it.
 
2013-02-11 10:28:35 PM

LoneWolf343: People vote, therefore it is a democracy. Spin as much as you want, but until people aren't voting anymore, it is a democracy.


That's disturbing.

We vote, but only on a limited number of things, and then they are not all created equal. Different area's are given different weights, some sections are straight up thrown out without a second thought(like when Hillary was running against Obama in the primaries, not holding a grudge, just stating fact).  There are laws passed that the people never had anything to do with, unless you seriously want to count the running joke that is our system via proxy.

Feel free to pretend in your own little world, but please try not to spread such misinformation.  The only sane(yet still dirty) reason to do so is to give false hope and satisfaction.
 
2013-02-11 10:43:29 PM

omeganuepsilon: LoneWolf343: The US is a democracy, idiot.

This goes a bit beyond dictionaries Sparky.

More of a functional encyclopedic knowledge is necessary to understand the discussion, maybe having better than a gradeschool education.

[[ Wiki on Democracy ]]  BLAH BLAH BLAH


Jesus dude, okay fine:

Yeah, well too bad you live in a farkin' democracy democratic republic.  You have a problem with people spending public money to create the trappings of civilization?  Move to an island and make your own Internet out of rocks.

Huh, the argument still holds.  It's almost as if this whinging about exact definitions is some sort of pointless non-sequitur.
 
2013-02-11 10:57:47 PM

LoneWolf343:

People vote, therefore it is a democracy.

Oh, is that painful?  Besides, the U.S.A. is a monarchy, because we have ELVIS, the king.

Seriously, though, the second paragraph of the Wikipedia entry for the federal government starts: "The full name of the republic is 'The United States of America'. "  It might be helpful if you didn't fling around "idiot" when you're wrong in the first place, on something that was covered in elementary school, for me at least.  Just sayin'



 
Displayed 276 of 276 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report