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 64
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-08 07:14:09 PM
8 votes:
This is something I've posted before, but considering the subject, I figured it was appropriate for me to scribble it down again...

The global warming denial thing is the singular most perfect subject upon which the entirety of the GOP can agree and I'll explain why.

The GOP is composed of two major groups, the religious right and the business interests.  Now, the religious right 'hates' the idea of global warming due to the fact that the premise behind it is that we, as a species, are causing global warming due to our prolific growth and industrial efforts.

Now, that right there is going piss them off.  Cause they believe that GOD made the world and everything in it, and 'He' controls that world inherently and we're just passengers on that ship.  It's an abdication of responsibility.  There's also the fact that the religious right rage about the concept that 'we' are capable of destroying the world through our adherence to 'be fruitful and multiply'.  Finally, the believe that it's the height of hubris to think that we're capable of 'accidentally' destroying the world, something created by GOD.  Sure, nukes are one thing, that's a DELIBERATE destruction of the world and a destruction by 'fire', something that the religious nuts like a lot for some reason.

So they're going to get up arms about it, sneering at the educated scientists that have been pissing them off for about 500 years now.

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?  They'll be dead!

That's why you see the GOP so united on this particular issue.
2013-03-08 05:42:21 PM
8 votes:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.


I've long since learned that bothering to construct a coherent and intelligent argument to refute your trolling is a waste of time. You simply ignore all data that disagrees with you (so on this subject: all data period) and continue to troll.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 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.


you fail at basic thermodynamics. try looking up the matter and energy densities of the interstellar medium, then calculate the amount of energy needed to raise the global mean temperature by even quarter of a degree Celsius and learn why your suggestion that it is the interstellar medium warming us is pants-on-head-retarded.
2013-03-08 07:21:37 PM
7 votes:

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.


the argument from human insignificance.. that's not new at all! [/sarcasm]

upload.wikimedia.org

10^12 tons. 1,000,000,000,000. TERATONS of Carbon.

Human activity is adding TERATONS of Carbon. It's called the "Law of Extremely Large Numbers". One human is insignificant. 7 billion humans are not.

Stop being a moron.
2013-03-08 10:41:10 PM
6 votes:

leadmetal: They are in the role they play for the power structure of the society.


Not they don't.

The scientist as a class has NEVER held power in ANY culture, time period, or location in the HISTORY of mankind. All human hierarchical systems have always been dominated by either the army, the clergy or the merchant. Never the scientist.

leadmetal: Ever read early 20th century texts about how "science" will replace religion?


Science is not interested in replacing anything, it is only interested in studying that which exists so that we may understand it better. It doesn't see religion as very pertinent in pursuit of these aims.

Religion sees science as a threat only because religion has historically made a lot of postulations about the natural world that have been proven to be wrong, but that's not science's fault. Science isn't trying to prove religion wrong because science isn't interested in what the answers are, only in the process used to reach them. Religion has always prided itself on having all the answers. Science makes no such claim -- it's only interested in studying the questions.

There are a lot of things that science does not and will not ever study (love, philosophy, faith, metaphysics, etc.) because those things are outside the realm of rational inquiry and hence are inadmissible to science.

leadmetal: An intellectual class tells us, the people, why we should obey the ruling class.


First of all, there is no "intellectual" class. Intellectuals are found in all segments of humanity, so they do not exist as a cohesive class to begin with, and if they did, they would usually BE the ruling class, so what you're essentially saying is that a class of particular-minded people want to manipulate us into obeying them, which is terribly redundant not to mention uproariously stupid.

leadmetal: The processes used in the scientific part of that modern intellectual class, in an ideal sense could work, for some things, if the people involved didn't have to worry about funding their next study. If they didn't have to worry about their careers.


You have a gross misunderstanding of what science really is if this is what you think. First of all, the people who attack scientific theories the most are scientists, because science is not dogma, it is a process for studying and understanding the natural world, and that entails constantly testing scientific assertions. Every single serious scientist at the forefront of their research does not accept any theory at face value. They attack it, often with extreme prejudice, and it keeps withstanding their attacks. If there were holes in any theory, the millions of studies done on a weekly basis will find them.

Secondly, scientists are only interested in doing good science. So long as they adhere to that mandate, they don't fear anything about their careers. And because it is a process of testing and re-testing assertions, fraudulent scientific studies are very quickly found and thrown out. This is what bolsters the process.

Every scientist would LOVE to come up with a competing theory to anything that exists today. In fact, scientists attempt to come up with new theories all the time. Nobel Prizes are given out for those who do it successfully, and the recognition earns them respect and accolades around the world and in the scientific community. So the attractive prospect of advancing science by coming up with something brand new is overwhelming. But they got to do the science first, and the science must stand up to scrutiny.

leadmetal: Science" has intentionally wrecked the careers of many who were ultimately proven correct


Such as?

leadmetal: No, sorry, it's not this infallible group of people using perfect processes. Far from it. The fact so many believe it to be practically infallible is the problem,


No one thinks scientists are infallible or that the process is infallible. In fact, science runs almost entirely on mistakes. The most common phrase in science is not "Eureka!" but rather "Hmmm. That's weird -- why did that happen?" Scientists love not knowing, and they love figuring things out, and they love the thousand failures it takes to produce one success. And that is why the process keeps pushing us forward.

You can't really say that about the apparatus of any other system.
2013-03-08 08:01:20 PM
4 votes:

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 10:02:26 PM
3 votes:
leadmetal:

This class of government dependent intellectuals exists to make those who sign their paychecks happy and not risking their careers by deviating from the beliefs of their peers.  From economics to social science to climate science and beyond, the intellectual class is part of how power maintains itself in the modern world. They do what is best for where their paychecks come from. They are -human- beings and like any other group there is a significant portion that will go along with the sociopaths at the top just to live a comfortable life. Wha ...

AGAIN, that's funny. Really funny that you accuse someone making 58K a year of publishing for the sake of money, while the oil tycoons that have billions at stake would never do such a thing. Obviously, they're just whistling dixie.

you realize occam's razor, by your own posts reasoning, clearly points to us not believing a whit of global instability deniers for the very reasons you give?
2013-03-08 08:56:51 PM
3 votes:

Chach: Infernalist: 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.

What's funny is that you think that academics have to worry about staying funded.

They do. Buck the trend? Better have a good reason or get out of the pool.

Politics is a giant influence in research. How is it that liberals dominate any given university? It ain't because liberals are smarter, that's for sure.


No, it's because conservatives prefer willful ignorance to facing up to a reality that doesn't conform to their dogma.
2013-03-08 08:28:09 PM
3 votes:

oren0: Kazan: 10^12 tons. 1,000,000,000,000. TERATONS of Carbon.

Human activity is adding TERATONS of Carbon. It's called the "Law of Extremely Large Numbers". One human is insignificant. 7 billion humans are not.

What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere is that? How does the annual amount compare to the amount emitted by natural processes, such as decaying trees or the ocean? Hint: it's about two orders of magnitude smaller.


Did you know that the temperature difference between ice and liquid water is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the actual temperature of ice?

Did you know that the distance between "I'm safe on the sidewalk" and "I'm in the middle of the damn road and will be promptly hit by a car" is about two orders of magnitude smaller than the length of a city block?

Funny how little variations can wind up mattering.
2013-03-08 06:57:49 PM
3 votes:

serial_crusher: So, if that rapid cooling had continued, that would have been a bad thing too, right?


To some degree yes. But on a dramatically slower scale ... centuries instead of decades.

The earth's Milankovitch cycle is about 100,000 years long with about 90,000 of those years cold and 10,000 years warm. These are very rough numbers as there are three forces overlapping/interfering to make the exact cycle difficult to nail down.

We have been in the warm part of the cycle for more than 10,000 years so we are due to head into the cold part ... i.e. the ice age. Which is what the data in this article is showing.

So it looks like AGW has delayed the cold cycle. In fact, had AGW not happened now, I would suggest that a few thousand years from now man would have intentionally started it to stave off or blunt the coming ice age.

So all that is well and good. Here's the problem: current AGW is too fast and out of control. We are trapping massive amounts of energy into the system and we are doing nothing to mitigate or control it.

All attempts to get any kind handle on the system are met by denier's and their anti-science campaign. The powerful heating of the greenhouse effect is completely swamping the current weak cooling of the Milankovitch cycle and deniers are trying to make us all put our collective heads into the sand.

The math is actually pretty simple ... calculate the volume of air and water on the earth and calculate how much energy it takes to raise it all by 1 degree C. It is a staggering amount ... and there is no way we will not be impacted by this much extra energy: more violent storms, sea level rises due to melting and density change, local climate changes, etc.
2013-03-08 06:48:14 PM
3 votes:

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.
2013-03-08 06:47:56 PM
3 votes:

Kazan: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Wow with debating skills like that I am forced to recant.

I've long since learned that bothering to construct a coherent and intelligent argument to refute your trolling is a waste of time. You simply ignore all data that disagrees with you (so on this subject: all data period) and continue to troll.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 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.

you fail at basic thermodynamics. try looking up the matter and energy densities of the interstellar medium, then calculate the amount of energy needed to raise the global mean temperature by even quarter of a degree Celsius and learn why your suggestion that it is the interstellar medium warming us is pants-on-head-retarded.


Listen. This guy is trying to find any reason other than the obvious one so it fits with his political ideology. He's got decades of oil company and GOP propaganda brainwashing to deal with.
2013-03-08 06:36:08 PM
3 votes:

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.


Cosmic Background Radiation is at about 4 Kelvin.  You are retarded.
2013-03-08 05:14:10 PM
3 votes:

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


if you really think this is the cause, then you are a jackass.
2013-03-09 08:24:27 PM
2 votes:
The Koch Brothers (and their siblings) (their name s pronounced COKE, to rhyme with COKE, the product of the partial combustion of coal, used as an industrial fuel) own the second largest private conglomeration of companies in America.

They own the coal. They own the gas and the petroleum. They own the logging rights to millions of acres of Government land. They are the miners and deforesters and the corporate farmers.
 They don't care about the politics provided they can buy their own way.


They own the Senators in the states where their money is invested. A politician they don't own is dead.

They own the Government of the State of Wisconsin, which used to be liberal and cool because it was full of Scandinavians and farmer coops.

They have been buying up university Economics departments and converting them to Libertarian think tanks, which have as much to do with economic realities as Creationism has to do with physics, chemistry, geology and especially biology.

They don't care about the science.

They don't care if alternative energy is feasible and cheap. They don't care about low-hanging fruit and energy convservation. THEY OWN THE COAL. If, as the science suggests, we have to stop burning coal, natural gas, and petroleum for at least the next thousand years, it ceases to be worth trillions of dollars (even in the ground). It stays in the ground. It is worth nada.

You go from $25 billion to nothing. In six seconds.

The countries that are holding up global policy and action have a lot of fossil fuels in the ground or are burning a lot of them. Exceptions include Norway, which is sequestering about a third of the carbon from their oil fields, and Cuba, which apparently hasn't got the money or the technology to get at the natural gas and oil under its territorial waters. They may even be afraid to acknowledge how much bounty they are sitting on because they know the marines would be in Havana six days later.

And so it goes, and so it goes ....

The Kochs own the coal. They and others like them in other countries, know that the upshot of climate change is this: THE COAL WILL HAVE TO STAY IN THE GROUND.

Today, tomorrow, five hundred years from now, no matter. Because THEY OWN THE COAL, ALL OF THE COAL, AND SOME OF THEM, NOTHING BUT THE COAL.

This coal is worth trillions of dollars, as is the natural gas and the oil and the coke. Even in the ground, although it is not taxed until you take it out, if then. And they get billions of dollars of subsidies to look for it, find it and keep it in the ground until it is wanted. There is enough coal alone to keep us going for hundreds of years. THEY OWN IT ALL!

But the day that we do what we must in order to avoid the terrible, unimaginably expensive externalities of burning the carbon in the ground and destroying the forests and wilderness and farmland--that day is the day that their net worths fall to ZERO. Not a plugged Canadian penny's worth of coal. No price on coal at all--ever.

That is the fact that you should always bear in mind.

Slim Pickens is invested in wind power. Warren Buffett is a smart guy, but he is buying railroads because he suspects that pipelines aren't going to be popular. George Soros is George Soros--he helped to free Eastern Europe as much as Reagan, the Pope and God Almighty combined. But he is off doing something else, perhaps something none of the other super-rich guys are doing. And so is Bill Gates III.

But understanding the dinosaurian, predatory coal magnate minds of the Koch Brothers is all you really need to understand, and if you don't, it doesn't matter if you are a warmer or a denier because you just don't get it.
2013-03-08 08:56:16 PM
2 votes:

Infernalist: Assuming we go with your theory of it happening gradually, what happens when the Breadbasket region of the Midwest suddenly goes dry and some arid region of southern Mexico suddenly finds itself with a perfect climate for growing vast amounts of crops?

What happens when the nation with the largest military ever to exist suddenly finds itself hungry and having to pay top dollar for food after a century of being a net exporter of sustenance crops? How long do you think before Mexico gets annexed?


You should read the writing of James Hansen and other leading alarmists from the '90s about what the food supply would be like in the 2010-2020 decade. Despite their predictions, crop yields are at an all time high.
2013-03-08 08:37:50 PM
2 votes:

GF named my left testicle thundercles: although i agree that warming is happening and is anthropomorphic, can anyone provide me with links about why warming is bad? it seems to me that preventing the end of the holocene interglacial is a good idea.


TLDR version: Human civilization has built its cities and roads and what-not based on the assumption that drinkable water, food-growing land, and the like tend to stay put from decade to decade. Climate change will cause a lot of areas which currently get enough water to stop getting water, and a bunch of areas which currently get enough rain and sun to grow food to stop getting enough rain and sun to grow food. Suddenly, a lot of people have to migrate in order to survive, and during that migration they'll have to cross a bunch of national borders and violate a lot of political and cultural assumptions. That wouldn't be a problem, if humans weren't so instinctively territorial, but since they are, it's pretty much inevitable that a subset of them will freak the fark out and wind up killing millions or even billions of people.

Does that make sense?
2013-03-08 08:07:58 PM
2 votes:

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 07:11:20 PM
2 votes:

TV's Vinnie: Infernalist: You can live in a cave if you want. I'm not saying that's wrong or anything, but you'd have to be retarded to actually think that's what people are advocating.

I'm not, and they are.


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.  And if you act on it, well then you're not even mentally capable of counting to potato.
2013-03-08 07:10:27 PM
2 votes:

JRoo: So global warming has saved us from an advancing ice age?

Sweet.

Now we just have to figure out how to slow it down and control it.


This is effectively all true. The problems with is are as follows:

- we know how to control it (manage the greenhouse gas %) but the anti-science movement opposes all actions that will enable us to actually turn it down

- we are already too high

- there is a large lag in the system and we are already going to way overshoot our ideal temperature. It is already too late to stop things from getting bad ... if we act now all we can to is reduce how bad and for how long.

I do small scale reactor controller programming as one of my many jobs and lag is a biatch ... makes control difficult.
2013-03-08 07:03:47 PM
2 votes:

TV's Vinnie: Infernalist: You can live in a cave if you want. I'm not saying that's wrong or anything, but you'd have to be retarded to actually think that's what people are advocating.

I'm not, and they are.


okay, so you're just really really bad at arguing your point.

See, when you deliberately misconstrue what the other side is saying or suggesting, people automatically take your opinion and throw it out the window and label you as a 'strawman' user.

Now, you can use that strawman in any way that you like, I mean, it's a free country and you can abuse that bastard all you like, but you can't complain or get sad when people stop and ask you why you're not wearing your droolcup or your helmet.

In short, address the actual 'reality' of what they're suggesting instead of something you made up to make them look worse than they actually are.

Or you can keep on being really really bad at this whole 'debating' thing.  It's up to you.
2013-03-08 06:57:30 PM
2 votes:

TV's Vinnie: So obviously, the solution is to

1. Give billions of dollars to the scientists
2. Round up everyone, exterminate 90% of the Earth's population (excluding scientists, supermodels, and asian porn starlets of course), and force the remaining 10% to shiver in unlit caves and allowed to only eat their own dung & wear clothes made only out of their own hair  (again, excluding scientists, supermodels, and asian porn starlets, who will have mansions).


You can live in a cave if you want.  I'm not saying that's wrong or anything, but you'd have to be retarded to actually think that's what people are advocating.

So, are you retarded or just bad at arguing your point?
2013-03-08 06:56:45 PM
2 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-03-08 06:55:41 PM
2 votes:
madmikesamerica.com
2013-03-08 05:25:54 PM
2 votes:

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.
2013-03-08 05:10:05 PM
2 votes:
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
2013-03-08 04:44:06 PM
2 votes:
The end of the Holocene would really fark with their tiny little heads.
2013-03-08 03:53:59 PM
2 votes:
Being a pirate became unfashionable in 1907. True. read it on the internet.
2013-03-08 10:10:16 PM
1 votes:
leadmetal: wall-of-text

What your argument reminded me of.

4.bp.blogspot.com

 "But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!"

 It has a similar cadence to your thought process.
2013-03-08 09:57:10 PM
1 votes:

Infernalist: 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.


Name calling, insults, blah blah blah.

You're so angered that I don't share your belief that scientists have super-human traits. Always trustworthy, logical, rational, and grounded in evidence.

You clearly dislike that I see "science" as part of an intellectual class that supports the ruling class.  

Peer review has so many problems that when someone trots it out the way you do I know it's just a religious belief rather than a rational look at the process.  Anyone who had a clue should be aware of it. There's some TED talks on it if you want to learn.

This class of government dependent intellectuals exists to make those who sign their paychecks happy and not risking their careers by deviating from the beliefs of their peers.  From economics to social science to climate science and beyond, the intellectual class is part of how power maintains itself in the modern world. They do what is best for where their paychecks come from. They are -human- beings and like any other group there is a significant portion that will go along with the sociopaths at the top just to live a comfortable life. What is most silly is those people who call scientists funded by private industry as being biased but then turn around and say the results are pure when it is funded by the political process..... it's laughable.  If I had said that scientists getting funding from tobacco companies produced biased work then you'd probably nod your head in agreement. What grinds your gears is that I find the same true of politically funded work. That it would reflect the desires of those with political power.

Many an individual scientist has published papers or done work that went against the grain. What happens is that their careers are ruined. Funding dries up. Few people have the strength of character to go through that. Many times, 20, 30, 40, 100 years later they are called 'ahead of their time' and things like that. But in their time they suffer and are called 'kooks' and worse. Few people care more about being proven correct after they are dead than living comfortably in the present.

Science has chased out so many people who challenged the status-quo of their day only for it to be accepted decades later it's laughable to think the processes are anywhere close to fair let alone unbiased.

Ishkur: 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.


They are in the role they play for the power structure of the society. How they do it is indeed quite different, but what they do is the same. Ever read early 20th century texts about how "science" will replace religion? About how society will be shaped and so forth?  It's good to read, it's eye opening stuff. Especially when it shows that the science of today fits the plan of yesterday. Also, keep in mind, that the intellectuals of centuries past were often monks, priests, and so forth. If you wanted to be educated and were not born into wealth you went into that system. They were in large part, the intellectuals of their time.

An intellectual class tells us, the people, why we should obey the ruling class. They serve to justify the agenda. To get our consent to being ruled. The processes used in the scientific part of that modern intellectual class, in an ideal sense could work, for some things, if the people involved didn't have to worry about funding their next study. If they didn't have to worry about their careers. But they do, and thus the 'process of science' is far from pure. Worse yet, it is politically funded.Funded by the government, funded by the foundations that influence government. Funded by those who create the agenda. The agenda behind CO2 driven climate change is very high stakes considering the degree of control the ruling class wants to leverage from it.

If you found out that CO2 driven global warming was bunk and your work proved it without a doubt would you have the balls to publish it knowing your entire career would circle the toilet bowl and be flushed because of it? That you would be accused of being a fossil fuel company shill and worse? That you and your work would be discredited in the minds of people and nothing would likely change? Could you take that treatment? Could you drive a cab to feed to your kids just to stick your guns? Could you?

"Science" has intentionally wrecked the careers of many who were ultimately proven correct. Often for simple no-shiat-sherlock things like 'wash your hands after handling a corpse and before delivering a baby'. It also refuses to recognize error based on crappy work for decades. No, sorry, it's not this infallible group of people using perfect processes. Far from it. The fact so many believe it to be practically infallible is the problem, not my seeing the political process as corrupting factor.
2013-03-08 09:25:53 PM
1 votes:

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?


Tree ring proxy data tracks well with other proxies until about 1960.  Instrumental records track well with tree ring data from the 1800's until around 1960.  Tree growth in general has been predictable until ... guess when ... 1960.  This is an old argument that's been beaten to death.  An anomaly was discovered, discussion ensued, more tests were conducted, data was updated, all this was peer-reviewed and the conclusion was: tree growth has changed in the last few decades due to mostly anthropomorphic factors.  This is how science is done.

Welcome to science.
2013-03-08 09:08:47 PM
1 votes:

oren0: Let's say it were unequivocally true that AGW was caused by CO2 and was going to be catastrophic. Why is this the only solution? For example, we know that SO2 can cause global cooling (see Mount Pinatubo, 1991). Geoengineering effects such as releasing SO2 into the atmosphere would be hundreds if not thousands of times cheaper than cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Why is it that the only solutions environmentalists will accept are the ones that cost trillions of dollars?


This is 100% anti-science propaganda. Only deniers say "he only solutions environmentalists will accept are the ones that cost trillions of dollars ". They paint all options as "economy destroying" to maintain the status quo.

People who are actually trying to help are interested in all potential improvements ... from the free to the different. Obviously there will be cost/benefit analyses on any proposed solutions before they can be implemented and there needs to be evidence to support the effectiveness.

But your corporate masters appreciate you continuing to spread their propaganda.
2013-03-08 08:56:43 PM
1 votes:

Chach: Infernalist: 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.

What's funny is that you think that academics have to worry about staying funded.

They do. Buck the trend? Better have a good reason or get out of the pool.

Politics is a giant influence in research. How is it that liberals dominate any given university? It ain't because liberals are smarter, that's for sure.


Your posts indicate the opposite.
2013-03-08 08:55:53 PM
1 votes:

Chach: I'm absolutely 100% for the people biatching about allegedly anthropogenic global warming having their share of resources rationed and having a fund started that they can pay into to (LOL) "offset" carbon emissions. Because, y'know, tossing money at it helps.


You are a fool of the highest magnitude. "Throwing money at it" is more realistically called paying your bills. Like I throw money at my electric bill, I throw money at my mortgage. I throw money at the grocery store, the gym, and all kinds of other places, and you know what? My electric stays on, I eat, I have a place to ;live.

Throwing money at problems is HOW you solve them.,
2013-03-08 08:50:32 PM
1 votes:

iheartscotch: I see you don't seem to understand that during peak solar events that the sun throws addition energy out into space. And the sun cycles are typically a decade or so long.


Could you explain how a decade-long event can affect temperatures consistently over 150 years? Could you also point to evidence that this is affecting temperatures?
2013-03-08 08:32:00 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: iheartscotch: My point was; our sun is a big factor in us being warm.

Oh, really? Perhaps you could point to some research that confirms this hypothesis.


I said the sun is a factor in us being warm; not that it is necessarily a factor in warming trends. I was also pointing out that it is known that the sun goes in cycles. Here's a handy little article from the Goddard center concerning sun spots.


http://web.archive.org/web/20070823050403/http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gs f c/spacesci/solarexp/sunspot.htm

(Copy paste)
2013-03-08 08:24:28 PM
1 votes:

New Age Redneck: We don't and never will. When did we as a species become so f*cking arrogant that we think we control nature?


Right! We'll never split the atom either! And decoding DNA?? How can we be so arrogant??

/just because you are a moran that will never understand science does not mean everyone else is stupid too
2013-03-08 08:20:53 PM
1 votes:

LookForTheArrow: New Age Redneck: FTFA: future where humans control the thermostat of the planet

    We don't and never will. When did we as a species become so f*cking arrogant that we think we control nature? Mother nature is coldly indifferent to our presence at best, we'll be another species that will go extinct to no fanfare. Sleep tight.

/ could you at least enjoy the ride for chrissakes

you ass. Algae, a motherfarking microbe you can't even see, terra formed the entire planet. 3 billion years later, those same microbes can now dig through the earth and unleash/mine/extract any amount of material we find convenient to extract and you think that's "small fries"?

you moron.


Why do you believe that those microbes ever existed? Why do you believe that "three billion years" even happened? Why do you believe that we live on a "planet"?

How do you intend to argue with someone who is willing to disregard those beliefs in order to maintain their belief that you're full of shiat?
2013-03-08 08:19:04 PM
1 votes:

New Age Redneck: FTFA: future where humans control the thermostat of the planet

    We don't and never will. When did we as a species become so f*cking arrogant that we think we control nature? Mother nature is coldly indifferent to our presence at best, we'll be another species that will go extinct to no fanfare. Sleep tight.

/ could you at least enjoy the ride for chrissakes


you ass. Algae, a motherfarking microbe you can't even see, terra formed the entire planet. 3 billion years later, those same microbes can now dig through the earth and unleash/mine/extract any amount of material we find convenient to extract and you think that's "small fries"?

you moron.
2013-03-08 08:07:36 PM
1 votes:

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 08:07:02 PM
1 votes:

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 08:04:52 PM
1 votes:

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 08:03:58 PM
1 votes:
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 07:55:38 PM
1 votes:

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 07:43:31 PM
1 votes:
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 07:42:56 PM
1 votes:
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 07:29:46 PM
1 votes:

Ow! That was my feelings!: There is obviously 'anti-science bias', but the reason there will be no solution is anti-tax bias, at least in the US.  There is ZERO chance of carbon taxes or some similar scheme happening in the US, China, India and most of the world.  It is missing the point to claim 'anti-science' is the issue when it is rejection of the 'solution' of massive tax hikes that is really the issue.


There is much that can be done without massive tax hits. Other countries are commercially successful in green industries.

The anti-science propaganda impedes everything from moving in a good direction ... both the expensive solutions and the free change in mind-set that can also have an impact.

The idea that every solution is expensive is part of the anti-science propaganda.
2013-03-08 07:21:31 PM
1 votes:
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

www.planetaryvisions.com
or this

productionhausmedia.com
2013-03-08 07:21:05 PM
1 votes:

Farking Canuck: Infernalist: That's why you see the GOP so united on this particular issue.

And here I was thinking it was just stupidity ... Hanlon's Razor and all.

Maybe we're both right.


Understanding motivation is key.  With the business interests, it's simple: What makes them money is 'good', what costs them money is 'evil'.

With the religious, it's not that simple.  You have to understand their strange mix of of deliberate ignorance, hatred of science, adherence to tradition and the absolute NEED to maintain their persecution complex.  Because they're the victims here.
2013-03-08 07:07:43 PM
1 votes:
Wow, the Koch-funded alts are out in force... I guess that's Friday night for ya.
2013-03-08 07:00:10 PM
1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: It was the evil oil companies, incorporated 11,000 years ago, that began all this climate trouble!


upload.wikimedia.org


don't be stupid.

/too late.
2013-03-08 06:57:25 PM
1 votes:

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 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.


So the temperature increased on all the planets in the solar system in a likewise fashion?  Did the sun also get hotter when we got to this area of space?  We're in danger of Jupiter, and the other gas giants, boiling off!  Oh noes!
2013-03-08 06:55:06 PM
1 votes:

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


Wow. I didn't realize the deniers were already having to reach into interstellar space for rationalizations.
2013-03-08 06:53:41 PM
1 votes:
4.bp.blogspot.com
2013-03-08 06:53:36 PM
1 votes:
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.
2013-03-08 06:52:08 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-03-08 06:49:22 PM
1 votes:

Infernalist: Did not read the article, but wouldn't it be amusing if our mere industrialized presence is keeping the world from slipping back into another Little Ice Age?


While an Ice age would be bad. I think flooding the most densely populated and productive areas and the acceleration of desertification of our farming belts is probably worse for us.
2013-03-08 06:46:48 PM
1 votes:
Let's see which debunked theories will be trotted out that internet crazies believe hundreds and hundreds of scientists forgot about? Water vapor in the air? Distance to the sun? Change has happened before so we can't possibly be causing change?

One thing sadly seems true: the inbred drooling Jukes and Kallikaks (and those who get rich off them) have won. It's too late.
2013-03-08 06:46:37 PM
1 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Airplanes?


Well yes. . . and their chemtrails full of mind control drugs.
2013-03-08 06:15:45 PM
1 votes:

Peter von Nostrand: Your mom spread her legs?

/got nothing


That's enough. Never a wrong occasion for a good your mom joke.
2013-03-08 05:21:20 PM
1 votes:
Was it farting?  I'm going with farting.

images1.wikia.nocookie.net

RUSTY!
2013-03-08 05:04:26 PM
1 votes:
See what happens when we let women vote?
2013-03-08 05:00:16 PM
1 votes:
Was it Teddy Roosevelt?  I'm guessing Teddy Roosevelt.
2013-03-08 04:54:16 PM
1 votes:
FatGore
2013-03-08 03:49:34 PM
1 votes:
Ironically, it was the invention of the home refrigerator.
 
Displayed 64 of 64 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report