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.

(Atlanta Journal Constitution)   Researchers say the earth is getting warmer faster than at any time in the last 11,000 years and that the world was actually rapidly cooling until SOMETHING made the temperatures start to climb in the early 20th century   (ajc.com) divider line 366
    More: Obvious, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, tree rings, ice cores, heat spike  
•       •       •

5477 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Mar 2013 at 6:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-08 07:39:59 PM

iheartscotch: No interstellar mediums, eh? What, pray tell, would you call the sun then, if I may ask?


It definitely isn't interstellar.
 
2013-03-08 07:41:23 PM

TeamEd: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Kazan: if you really think this is the cause, then you are a jackass.

Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.


sigdiamond2000: We're in the hotter part of space now.

Could be. Cosmic background radiation does differ from point to point in the vacuum. And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.

For all intents and purposes the cosmic background radiation is entirely uniform in every direction. Seriously, the CMB is  2.72548±0.00057K with the  ±0.00057K accounting for all of the variation you see in those splotchy green and blue maps.


What's really cool is that theoretically, you can use the CMBR anisotropies as a "universal coordinate system" of sorts, because no location in space will have the same distributions, but they change in a predictable way depending where you go. So, you could receive the equation for a particular location's CMBR anisotropies and then navigate to it, by monitoring the way in which the anisotropies move.
 
2013-03-08 07:41:43 PM

hawcian: TV's Vinnie: Duck_of_Doom: To be fair, lots of people advocate eliminating huge groups of people all the time. On any given day, an internet post somewhere will say to kill (whites/blacks/Muslims/Christians/meat eaters/internet users/liberals/Yanks/the poor/the rich). No one with any sense takes them seriously.

Unless you do take them seriously, which is a bigger issue in misunderstanding hyperbole.

The issue isn't whether you or I take this asshole seriously. It's that certain people in positions of power (with the resources to make things happen) ARE taking this asshole seriously.

Okay, I'll bite. Please back up this assertion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Hardin

In 1963, Hardin drew heavy criticism from the left for his occasional indulgence in theories that may justify genocide on the grounds of ecological balance. This thesis was put forward and defended by his readings of the early Christian philosopher Tertullian, who believed that famine and war were good for society as a whole as a means of solving the problem of overpopulation and resource-sharing.
 
2013-03-08 07:41:45 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: A single species irrevocably changing the Earth's atmosphere is not unheard of.
To wit:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
Blue green algae, people.
Teh Google is your friend.


Cites Evilution, therefore didn't happen.
 
2013-03-08 07:42:10 PM
img397.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-08 07:42:56 PM
So I'm reading the paper and they do what all the proxy people do. They do statistics on thicknesses of things and then lay that series on top of a temperature series from the CRU that runs from 1961-1990 and tweak the series until it matches in shape and then assume that the rest of the series now represents temperature for thousands of years. They say their resolution runs from 20-500 years with a mean of 120 years. And surely the temperature spike comes from direct thermometer measurements and didn't come at all from their proxies. I mean, come on, people.
 
2013-03-08 07:43:31 PM
I scare you, and you fund me.

It the m.o. of almost all people in and around politics, policies, and TV/Internet (especially in the US).
 
2013-03-08 07:45:18 PM

TV's Vinnie: hawcian: TV's Vinnie: Duck_of_Doom: To be fair, lots of people advocate eliminating huge groups of people all the time. On any given day, an internet post somewhere will say to kill (whites/blacks/Muslims/Christians/meat eaters/internet users/liberals/Yanks/the poor/the rich). No one with any sense takes them seriously.

Unless you do take them seriously, which is a bigger issue in misunderstanding hyperbole.

The issue isn't whether you or I take this asshole seriously. It's that certain people in positions of power (with the resources to make things happen) ARE taking this asshole seriously.

Okay, I'll bite. Please back up this assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Hardin

In 1963, Hardin drew heavy criticism from the left for his occasional indulgence in theories that may justify genocide on the grounds of ecological balance. This thesis was put forward and defended by his readings of the early Christian philosopher Tertullian, who believed that famine and war were good for society as a whole as a means of solving the problem of overpopulation and resource-sharing.


TV's Vinnie: hawcian: TV's Vinnie: Duck_of_Doom: To be fair, lots of people advocate eliminating huge groups of people all the time. On any given day, an internet post somewhere will say to kill (whites/blacks/Muslims/Christians/meat eaters/internet users/liberals/Yanks/the poor/the rich). No one with any sense takes them seriously.

Unless you do take them seriously, which is a bigger issue in misunderstanding hyperbole.

The issue isn't whether you or I take this asshole seriously. It's that certain people in positions of power (with the resources to make things happen) ARE taking this asshole seriously.

Okay, I'll bite. Please back up this assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Hardin

In 1963, Hardin drew heavy criticism from the left for his occasional indulgence in theories that may justify genocide on the grounds of ecological balance. This thesis was put forward and defended by his readings of the early Christian philosopher Tertullian, who believed that famine and war were good for society as a whole as a means of solving the problem of overpopulation and resource-sharing.


No, I meant the "certain people in power are listening to guy's philosophy" part. I believe you that the guy is a loon.
 
2013-03-08 07:45:46 PM

ReverendJasen: God did it.
And who are we to question God's will?


See, when you say "God", I hear "ReverendJasen". Because, the only people I know of that talk about God so faux-humbly are those that are actually arrogant enough to think they speak for God.  And, of course, they're both arrogant and deceptive enough to tell their followers not to question their revelations...making them believe they are God.
 
2013-03-08 07:45:51 PM
Oh Boy- This gem.

The whole week on fark seems to have been revisiting old, hashed out discussions on old, hashed out topics. Some goofball Berkely politico wants to tax email. The USPS is bloated and outdated (when really it's burdened by unfair GOP requests to fund it's pension, and ripe for pillaging by the GOP crowd). Global warming (it's climate change, really). Obama sucks (nothing like George W did or the GOP in general). The GOP is evil (it is, but also damn good at what it does-also evil/selfish). Our country is in deep shiat (yes it is, but not because of Obama, just because ol' George W and his crew put us on the inevitable road to ruin-we are going to crash and burn no matter what at this point). North Korea is batshiat crazy (I think we all agree on that, but somehow it's all Obama's fault to you GOP'ers.

OK, let's hear conservatives and fundies deny there is climate change occurring, and if it is, has nothing to do with us- then the rest of us will point out the undeniable validity of empirical evidence and real science. That'll be fun.

Have a great weekend!
 
2013-03-08 07:46:07 PM

Infernalist: Now, the business interests are all about denying global warming, because it's THEIR industrial efforts that causing the worst of it.  And they're not about to take a cut in profits to save the world.  Why should they?  It's the most primal form of 'short term profit', after all.  What do they care what happens in a hundred years?


Actually, limiting carbon release would work in the big fossil fuel companies favors.
If you were them, would you prefer having your finite resource, which you sell at a killing profit anyway, to be further regulated and limited, thereby making it even more valuable and thereby locking in future profits, or would you just prefer to conduct business at the mercy of an dangerously oscillating free market?
The answer is quite clear.
Big energy wants its product metered out in measured doses, like any good drug dealer.
Think about it.
 
2013-03-08 07:46:13 PM
The problem with the industrial revolution as a trigger for global warming is that those that believe that to be the case think they've gone into the room for an argument, but they're still stuck in abuse.

/Toffee-nosed malodorous perverts, the lot of them.
 
2013-03-08 07:46:42 PM

Civil_War2_Time: I scare you, and you fund me.

It the m.o. of almost all people in and around politics, policies, and TV/Internet (especially in the US).


lead isn't bad for you, it's just a scare. Drink up.
 
2013-03-08 07:46:43 PM
Err...ignore the double-quote. Damn it.
 
2013-03-08 07:46:54 PM

Raging Thespian: FunkOut: How soon until sacrifices to the sun god start?

You haven't made ANY sacrifices to Ra yet?! You're screwed, man.


I got caught up in that whole moon goddess thing with the beer and the cats.
 
2013-03-08 07:47:08 PM
img803.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-08 07:48:20 PM

clowncar on fire: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Lets see here, our solar system travels about 23,265,520,000 km. a year. So in the 23,265,520,000 X 11,000 km we have traveled I'm going to say that we have changed locations. Maybe just maybe that has more to do with it then some insects called the human race

[cinenthusiast.files.wordpress.com image 400x245]

Great Scott!

And crawling, on the planet's face, some insects, called the human race. Lost in time, and lost in space... and meaning.
 
2013-03-08 07:48:54 PM
1) North Korea is not threat. We can gassify that place in a heartbeat and they know it.
2) The climate is changing; get over it and adapt. Move away from the farking coasts, idiots.
3) Candlesticks make a great gift.

That is all.
Good weekend, everyone.
 
2013-03-08 07:49:10 PM

Infernalist: leadmetal: HotIgneous Intruder: AGW is directly proportional to the number of professional academic who have made their financial existence dependent upon its viability as a hypothesis.

Ain't that the truth.

Thousands of years go by and it's still the same arrangement of human society.  Every system of rule requires a priest / intellectual class to support its power.

FunkOut: How soon until sacrifices to the sun god start?

Sometime after we start paying carbon indulgences.

Just curious, but are you actually equating priests with scientists?


It depends on which era of human society and which society you want to discuss. In some societies it was a priest class that told us why we had to obey the ruling class, how they were the ones to say how we should live and so forth. What sacrifices we had to make. The priests made a good living doing this.

In other societies it's an intellectual class. They call themselves scientists, economists, and other things. They proclaim to be experts and earn their paychecks, often out of tax monies, or monies from those who benefit from government to tell us why we should obey the ruling class, what sacrifices we have to make, how we should live, and so forth.

The idea that the profession of science is pure and unbiased is just childish naive belief. It is just as political and motivated by people building and holding on to status (and incomes) in their careers as any other field.
 
2013-03-08 07:49:31 PM

hawcian: TV's Vinnie: hawcian: TV's Vinnie: Duck_of_Doom: To be fair, lots of people advocate eliminating huge groups of people all the time. On any given day, an internet post somewhere will say to kill (whites/blacks/Muslims/Christians/meat eaters/internet users/liberals/Yanks/the poor/the rich). No one with any sense takes them seriously.

Unless you do take them seriously, which is a bigger issue in misunderstanding hyperbole.

The issue isn't whether you or I take this asshole seriously. It's that certain people in positions of power (with the resources to make things happen) ARE taking this asshole seriously.

Okay, I'll bite. Please back up this assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Hardin

In 1963, Hardin drew heavy criticism from the left for his occasional indulgence in theories that may justify genocide on the grounds of ecological balance. This thesis was put forward and defended by his readings of the early Christian philosopher Tertullian, who believed that famine and war were good for society as a whole as a means of solving the problem of overpopulation and resource-sharing.

TV's Vinnie: hawcian: TV's Vinnie: Duck_of_Doom: To be fair, lots of people advocate eliminating huge groups of people all the time. On any given day, an internet post somewhere will say to kill (whites/blacks/Muslims/Christians/meat eaters/internet users/liberals/Yanks/the poor/the rich). No one with any sense takes them seriously.

Unless you do take them seriously, which is a bigger issue in misunderstanding hyperbole.

The issue isn't whether you or I take this asshole seriously. It's that certain people in positions of power (with the resources to make things happen) ARE taking this asshole seriously.

Okay, I'll bite. Please back up this assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Hardin

In 1963, Hardin drew heavy criticism from the left for his occasional indulgence in theories that may justify genocide on the grounds of ecological balance. This thesis was put for ...


Not just was he a loon, but a discredited loon and mocked heavily from the 'left'.  He's the 1963 version of Glenn Beck, only unlike the Right, this loon was properly scorned and abandoned by the left.

He was a hypocrite and a borderline racist and basically abandoned to the fringe where he rightfully belonged, an example of how not to do things.
 
2013-03-08 07:49:45 PM

Nick Nostril: [img803.imageshack.us image 576x393]


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-08 07:50:45 PM

sbking: I guaranty that i know more about this subject than anybody on this thread.

Global warming has nothing to do with human beings or any other animal on this planet - it is the height of arrongance to believe we could do such a thing.


No, there's a higher arrogance...and that would be to believe that we could not do such a thing.  And those that tell us fact is arrogance also tell us that their blatant arrogance (that tells them that God talks to them personally) is actually humility.
 
2013-03-08 07:51:55 PM

Krieghund: iheartscotch: No interstellar mediums, eh? What, pray tell, would you call the sun then, if I may ask?

It definitely isn't interstellar.


Maybe I am wrong; but, isn't the definition of interstellar is a body that moves though space? The sun moves; from a galactic standpoint. I mean; we are in one of the "arms" of the galaxy.

And the sun does provide warmth to us.

/ it wouldn't take much increased output from the sun to cook us; from the perspective of the energy that the sun already puts out.

// not that I am saying that is what is happening
 
2013-03-08 07:54:14 PM

Raging Thespian: TheOther: Stop time.
This assumes time exists.
...
Whoa.


Whoa, indeed!  Read this book, "The End of Time".  It's about a different way of looking at time: it doesn't exist but is a convenient construct we use to make things make sense.  I don't think there's anything more to the 'theory' than thought-experiments, but it's a pretty interesting read.
 
2013-03-08 07:54:35 PM
HotIgneous Intruder:
Actually, limiting carbon release would work in the big fossil fuel companies favors.
If you were them, would you prefer having your finite resource, which you sell at a killing profit anyway, to be further regulated and limited, thereby making it even more valuable and thereby locking in future profits, or would you just prefer to conduct business at the mercy of an dangerously oscillating free market?
The answer is quite clear.
Big energy wants its product metered out in measured doses, like any good drug dealer.
Think about it.



"Competition is a sin" - John D. Rockefeller.
 
2013-03-08 07:55:38 PM

leadmetal: Infernalist: leadmetal: HotIgneous Intruder: AGW is directly proportional to the number of professional academic who have made their financial existence dependent upon its viability as a hypothesis.

Ain't that the truth.

Thousands of years go by and it's still the same arrangement of human society.  Every system of rule requires a priest / intellectual class to support its power.

FunkOut: How soon until sacrifices to the sun god start?

Sometime after we start paying carbon indulgences.

Just curious, but are you actually equating priests with scientists?

It depends on which era of human society and which society you want to discuss. In some societies it was a priest class that told us why we had to obey the ruling class, how they were the ones to say how we should live and so forth. What sacrifices we had to make. The priests made a good living doing this.

In other societies it's an intellectual class. They call themselves scientists, economists, and other things. They proclaim to be experts and earn their paychecks, often out of tax monies, or monies from those who benefit from government to tell us why we should obey the ruling class, what sacrifices we have to make, how we should live, and so forth.

The idea that the profession of science is pure and unbiased is just childish naive belief. It is just as political and motivated by people building and holding on to status (and incomes) in their careers as any other field.


Okay, just so we're clear here, that's an idiotic presenting of things.  You're equating the priesthood of ages past with today's scientific community.

One counted on the ignorance of the masses, and often worked HARD to keep them ignorant, while the other is based ENTIRELY upon the foundation of peer-reviewed evidence-based science.

They are, quite simply, as opposite from each other as any two things could possibly be.

The fact that you're trying to make them 'the same lol' pretty much relegates you to the lunatic corner or 'herpa derp' crowd.

You're basically saying that because scientists figured out that something LEAD is bad for you and smoking causes cancer...that they're telling you that you have to 'sacrifice' and not eat that yummy lead and give up those nifty cigarettes.

I just hope to god that you're trolling and you're not actually this retarded.
 
2013-03-08 07:56:35 PM

hasty ambush: So in other words we  staved off a new ice age that among other thigns  would have lowered sea levels and increased incidents of drought due to so much moisture being locked up in ice.

So it becomes a question of what inevitable climate change are we best able to cope with:

This


or this


The one where Florida is swallowed by the sea, duh
 
2013-03-08 07:57:03 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: And if you really believe that we have discovered and understand all the forces in play in our universe than you are just plain wrong.


Because if you don't know everything, you know nothing!
 
2013-03-08 07:57:15 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb and say it might have been the birth of Sophia Loren.
 
2013-03-08 07:57:48 PM
Wow. I'm glad we turned on the heat I far prefer the warming to the cooling. Keep pumping out that smoke china!
 
2013-03-08 07:58:12 PM

leadmetal: Infernalist: leadmetal: HotIgneous Intruder: AGW is directly proportional to the number of professional academic who have made their financial existence dependent upon its viability as a hypothesis.

Ain't that the truth.

Thousands of years go by and it's still the same arrangement of human society.  Every system of rule requires a priest / intellectual class to support its power.

FunkOut: How soon until sacrifices to the sun god start?

Sometime after we start paying carbon indulgences.

Just curious, but are you actually equating priests with scientists?

It depends on which era of human society and which society you want to discuss. In some societies it was a priest class that told us why we had to obey the ruling class, how they were the ones to say how we should live and so forth. What sacrifices we had to make. The priests made a good living doing this.

In other societies it's an intellectual class. They call themselves scientists, economists, and other things. They proclaim to be experts and earn their paychecks, often out of tax monies, or monies from those who benefit from government to tell us why we should obey the ruling class, what sacrifices we have to make, how we should live, and so forth.

The idea that the profession of science is pure and unbiased is just childish naive belief. It is just as political and motivated by people building and holding on to status (and incomes) in their careers as any other field.


On Fark, make a silly comment, then a superduper serious conversation ensues. It's like the opposite of actual life.
 
2013-03-08 07:58:35 PM
ITT: Idiots claiming the enormous amounts of crap our factories, cars, power plants, etc. spew into the atmosphere can't POSSIBLY have an effect.
 
2013-03-08 07:59:12 PM

LookForTheArrow: Civil_War2_Time: I scare you, and you fund me.

It the m.o. of almost all people in and around politics, policies, and TV/Internet (especially in the US).

lead isn't bad for you, it's just a scare. Drink up.


What does the word "almost" mean to you?
 
2013-03-08 08:01:20 PM

J. Frank Parnell: Farking Canuck: There is much that can be done without massive tax hits.

When they start talking about globally banning the combustion engine we'll be moving in the right direction. As soon as those are illegal alternatives will naturally appear, and all car company research will go towards making them better and better.

What, that's too extreme? I thought this was an extreme problem which had to be dealt with immediately?


This is denier propaganda. The vast majority of non-deniers just want to move in the right direction:

- reduction of pollution - so we can breathe in our cities
- reduction of dependence on Middle East oil - so we can stop funding the sand farmers who want to kill us
- increase on clean sources of electricity - our society will always demand more energy and increasingly it is in the form of electricity

The anti-science movement paints all improvements in the above as "economy destroying" because they are trying to maintain the extremely profitable (for them) status quo.

Are some of the proposals unrealistic or expenisve? Sure. Do you have to buy into every one of them? No!

It is not an all-or-nothing deal like the deniers are trying to paint it. Support programs that make sense to you and don't support the ones that don't. Just don't buy into the ridiculous anti-science propaganda that says scientists with their 5 figure salaries are the corrupt ones and oil execs with their 8 figure incomes are the good guys that are protecting you from the evil science.
 
2013-03-08 08:01:20 PM

Infernalist: leadmetal: Infernalist: leadmetal: HotIgneous Intruder: AGW is directly proportional to the number of professional academic who have made their financial existence dependent upon its viability as a hypothesis.

Ain't that the truth.

Thousands of years go by and it's still the same arrangement of human society.  Every system of rule requires a priest / intellectual class to support its power.

FunkOut: How soon until sacrifices to the sun god start?

Sometime after we start paying carbon indulgences.

Just curious, but are you actually equating priests with scientists?

It depends on which era of human society and which society you want to discuss. In some societies it was a priest class that told us why we had to obey the ruling class, how they were the ones to say how we should live and so forth. What sacrifices we had to make. The priests made a good living doing this.

In other societies it's an intellectual class. They call themselves scientists, economists, and other things. They proclaim to be experts and earn their paychecks, often out of tax monies, or monies from those who benefit from government to tell us why we should obey the ruling class, what sacrifices we have to make, how we should live, and so forth.

The idea that the profession of science is pure and unbiased is just childish naive belief. It is just as political and motivated by people building and holding on to status (and incomes) in their careers as any other field.

Okay, just so we're clear here, that's an idiotic presenting of things.  You're equating the priesthood of ages past with today's scientific community.

One counted on the ignorance of the masses, and often worked HARD to keep them ignorant, while the other is based ENTIRELY upon the foundation of peer-reviewed evidence-based science.

They are, quite simply, as opposite from each other as any two things could possibly be.

The fact that you're trying to make them 'the same lol' pretty much relegates you to the lunatic corner or ...


Why do you seriously assume that 'facts' matter to people, just because you think they matter to you?
 
2013-03-08 08:01:39 PM

Infernalist: while the other is based ENTIRELY upon the foundation of peer-reviewed evidence-based science.


Try some in-depth investigation of the history of science. It is far--quite far from the idealized version you make it out to be. It is as full of political bs/crap as any other human institution. I don't think that takes away from the very real issues of Global Climate Change, but neither is it some effortlessly-running edifice of rigorious and efficient knowledge production. Science always takes place in a human/narrative context and is no less affected by it than any other field of human endeavor.
 
2013-03-08 08:03:58 PM
To repeat: why do some people act like 'facts' matter?

I mean, sure, the 'fact' of whether we're all going to die when the Earth becomes inhospitable to life will eventually matter in a so-called "real" sense, but that won't cause a lick of policy change before then, and no so-called "evidence" will convince anyone with the power to affect things one way or the other, so why do we keep pretending like it matters what's "really" happening?
 
2013-03-08 08:04:42 PM

gorgon38: Wow. I'm glad we turned on the heat I far prefer the warming to the cooling. Keep pumping out that smoke china!


You're a frog in a pot of water. Good luck with that.
 
2013-03-08 08:04:52 PM

iheartscotch: Krieghund: iheartscotch: No interstellar mediums, eh? What, pray tell, would you call the sun then, if I may ask?

It definitely isn't interstellar.

Maybe I am wrong; but, isn't the definition of interstellar is a body that moves though space? The sun moves; from a galactic standpoint. I mean; we are in one of the "arms" of the galaxy.

And the sun does provide warmth to us.

/ it wouldn't take much increased output from the sun to cook us; from the perspective of the energy that the sun already puts out.

// not that I am saying that is what is happening


Dude.... interstellar means BETWEEN STARS. it's right there in the frackin' word  Please, for the LOLs, tells us all how a star can between itself. should be good.
 
2013-03-08 08:06:13 PM

machodonkeywrestler: There are other accurate measures that are very good at predicting the temperatures over a century old, but you knew that


Are there? The accuracy of tree ring proxies has been torn to shreds in the literature, and many other proxies are similarly problematic due to issues with improper statistics or bad assumptions about causation, see hockey stick controversy, Yamal trees, etc. Even if other proxies are accurate, how does this one compare? If your proxy can't perform in the one era where it is falsifiable by the instrumental temperature record, why should its accuracy over thousands of years be trusted?
 
2013-03-08 08:06:31 PM

LordJiro: ITT: Idiots claiming the enormous amounts of crap our factories, cars, power plants, etc. spew into the atmosphere can't POSSIBLY have an effect.


It has such an enormous effect it caused global warming on Mars.

The entire solar system is at stake here, people. And the only thing that can save it is your money.
 
2013-03-08 08:06:56 PM

Farking Canuck: gorgon38: Wow. I'm glad we turned on the heat I far prefer the warming to the cooling. Keep pumping out that smoke china!

You're a frog in a pot of water. Good luck with that.


You're in the same pot I am, at least when it goes, it'll kill you with me.

And if I can keep people giving me all the ways out of the pot, then I can use them to make sure that I die last, which means I get to watch the rest of you farkers burn before I go. What's not to love?
 
2013-03-08 08:07:02 PM

ialdabaoth: Why do you seriously assume that 'facts' matter to people, just because you think they matter to you?


It scares me how much truth there is to this question.
 
2013-03-08 08:07:16 PM

Civil_War2_Time: LookForTheArrow: Civil_War2_Time: I scare you, and you fund me.

It the m.o. of almost all people in and around politics, policies, and TV/Internet (especially in the US).

lead isn't bad for you, it's just a scare. Drink up.

What does the word "almost" mean to you?


ah so you admit you're wrong and that people had the same ignorance about lead as they do about more modern issues, but you of all people are qualified to separate that wheat from the chaff, assuring us all that almost all science is just scares.

methinks you protest too much.
 
2013-03-08 08:07:36 PM

leadmetal: The priests made a good living doing this. In other societies it's an intellectual class. They call themselves scientists, economists, and other things.


Not sure why you're equating the two. Religion is a thing, interpreted by priests, translated into dogma, for the sake of power, position and privilege. Science is a process, used by scientists, interpreted into theories, for the sake of increasing our understanding of the natural world and its faculties.

The two aren't even comparable.
 
2013-03-08 08:07:44 PM

oren0: machodonkeywrestler: There are other accurate measures that are very good at predicting the temperatures over a century old, but you knew that

Are there? The accuracy of tree ring proxies has been torn to shreds in the literature, and many other proxies are similarly problematic due to issues with improper statistics or bad assumptions about causation, see hockey stick controversy, Yamal trees, etc. Even if other proxies are accurate, how does this one compare? If your proxy can't perform in the one era where it is falsifiable by the instrumental temperature record, why should its accuracy over thousands of years be trusted?


fact, fact, fact... honestly, why are you bothering?
 
2013-03-08 08:07:58 PM

Somacandra: Infernalist: while the other is based ENTIRELY upon the foundation of peer-reviewed evidence-based science.

Try some in-depth investigation of the history of science. It is far--quite far from the idealized version you make it out to be. It is as full of political bs/crap as any other human institution. I don't think that takes away from the very real issues of Global Climate Change, but neither is it some effortlessly-running edifice of rigorious and efficient knowledge production. Science always takes place in a human/narrative context and is no less affected by it than any other field of human endeavor.


Yeah, once upon a time, science said that maggots spawned from raw meat and the sun revolved around the Earth.  Religious retards fought hard to maintain those mistakes, but the truth was eventually verified by others and 'science' happened.

That's the thing about science today.  If you make a claim, you better be prepared to back it up with your data so it can be reviewed and its effects repeated by independent parties.  Is it free of bias?  Nope, but when you get down to it, the bias goes out the window when independent parties replicate your results using your data.

It's about as bias-free as any thing in this world can be.  You can argue philosophy and history and concepts and ideas, but you can't argue with numbers.  You can't argue with verified data.

You can accept it or you can simply deny it, disparage the scientists and make deriding comments insinuating that they need global warming in order to stay funded, which is window-licking retarded.
 
2013-03-08 08:08:01 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: 1) North Korea is not threat. We can gassify that place in a heartbeat and they know it.
2) The climate is changing; get over it and adapt. Move away from the farking coasts, idiots.
3) Candlesticks make a great gift.

That is all.
Good weekend, everyone.


you're a farking idiot....candlesticks SUCK!
 
2013-03-08 08:08:34 PM
1) Civilization has flourished at each of the warmest points of the last 11,000 years.
2) Yesterday, researchers told me that temperatures have been warming steadily for about the last 800 years.  Which is it?
3) Whatever.  I live in Minnesota and we unquestionably benefit tremendously from global warming, so bring it on.
 
2013-03-08 08:09:00 PM

Farking Canuck: ialdabaoth: Why do you seriously assume that 'facts' matter to people, just because you think they matter to you?

It scares me how much truth there is to this question.


Yeah. I'm actually *not* trolling; I'm trying to get people to take a good, hard stare in to that abyss. Because honestly, this is where we are.
 
Displayed 50 of 366 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report