Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   % global_warming | FoxNews climate_change   (slate.com) divider line 135
    More: Stupid, Fox News, compendium, Frank Luntz, climate, greenhouse gases, global warming, climate change  
•       •       •

6420 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Apr 2013 at 2:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-28 01:11:46 PM  
Oh, good, another climate thread based solely on arguing over climate change.
 
2013-04-28 01:20:28 PM  
Conservative dinosaurs refused to listen and kept belching smog from their sweatshop factories and look what happened to them.
We are our own worst enemies and deserve the global warming ice age.

WON'T ANYBODY LISTEN?
 
2013-04-28 01:33:10 PM  
I just hope that when the octopi finally launch their explorations of the land, that they learn from our mistakes, and aren't too skeeved out by what the Japanese and Greeks did with their images. We'll be long gone by then, but one day, cephalopod archeologists will look on in wonder at the civilizations built by monstrous vertebrates, and spin their theories on the meanings to such things as Styrofoam and Matchbox cars, and maybe find a way to mine our garbage pits for useful doodads and materials...
 
2013-04-28 01:37:47 PM  

hubiestubert: I just hope that when the octopi finally launch their explorations of the land, that they learn from our mistakes, and aren't too skeeved out by what the Japanese and Greeks did with their images. We'll be long gone by then, but one day, cephalopod archeologists will look on in wonder at the civilizations built by monstrous vertebrates, and spin their theories on the meanings to such things as Styrofoam and Matchbox cars, and maybe find a way to mine our garbage pits for useful doodads and materials


I hope they find my iPhone.
Tentacle porn will tell them all they need to know.
 
2013-04-28 01:47:33 PM  

hubiestubert: I just hope that when the octopi finally launch their explorations of the land, that they learn from our mistakes, and aren't too skeeved out by what the Japanese and Greeks did with their images. We'll be long gone by then, but one day, cephalopod archeologists will look on in wonder at the civilizations built by monstrous vertebrates, and spin their theories on the meanings to such things as Styrofoam and Matchbox cars, and maybe find a way to mine our garbage pits for useful doodads and materials...


puff puff pass, man...puff puff pass
 
2013-04-28 02:12:55 PM  
it ought to be called global colding now

models.weatherbell.com
 
2013-04-28 02:17:35 PM  
I broke the dam.
 
2013-04-28 02:19:17 PM  
So the author of the article is whackin it in the corner because he gets to point out that "climate change" was coined by a republican and isn't a liberal term at all. The correction at the end of the article negates his point, but dammit all, we're going to press anyway!
WTF is wrong with Slate?
 
2013-04-28 02:30:21 PM  
 It seems the narrative has changed.  Used to be "greenhouse gases" and "global warming", now since temperatures have been flat for 15 years and we just got through the second coldest Jan-march in the U.S. ever recorded, the narrative is "global extremes not warming".

1)  He's a physicist talking outside of his discipline.
2)  How good can he be in his own field if he is teaching at Sonoma State?
3) People actually in the discipline don't seem to know what is going on.

As for myself, I have trouble believing that a 1/10th of 1% change in the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will make a whole heck of a lot of difference in global temperatures.   Now, should some credible data suggest otherwise, I will reconsider my position.
 
2013-04-28 02:34:36 PM  

Pumpernickel bread:  It seems the narrative has changed.  Used to be "greenhouse gases" and "global warming", now since temperatures have been flat for 15 years and we just got through the second coldest Jan-march in the U.S. ever recorded, the narrative is "global extremes not warming".

1)  He's a physicist talking outside of his discipline.
2)  How good can he be in his own field if he is teaching at Sonoma State?
3) People actually in the discipline don't seem to know what is going on.

As for myself, I have trouble believing that a 1/10th of 1% change in the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will make a whole heck of a lot of difference in global temperatures.   Now, should some credible data suggest otherwise, I will reconsider my position.


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/perso nal-incredulity
 
2013-04-28 02:41:33 PM  
Science v Media.... v Science Funding Speak.
Somewhere in there is the truth.
 
2013-04-28 02:44:34 PM  
The moment global warming/climate change became political it became impossible to have ANY intelligent discussion about it.

Oh, and if you don't think there is discussion to be had...you're part of the problem.  It's a scientific theory - there is ALWAYS discussion to be had.
 
2013-04-28 02:45:09 PM  

studs up: So the author of the article is whackin it in the corner because he gets to point out that "climate change" was coined by a republican and isn't a liberal term at all. The correction at the end of the article negates his point, but dammit all, we're going to press anyway!
WTF is wrong with Slate?


No, he's mocking Fox and others' use of it as scare tactic and conspiracy-angled bullshiat now, whereas in the not-too-distant-past it was emphasized as the way Republicans SHOULD be talking about it, in their political strategy platform.

Luntz didn't "coin" it at all, and the Slate piece didn't make that claim.  The Luntz memo was made in 2002, IIRC, so it was emphasized at Republican strategy during the Bush years.  But now it's used as a different kind of amazingly kooky strategy.

The IPCC was founded back in the late 80's, and the usage of the term itself can be traced back to the 50's within the scientific literature dealing with such matters.  I don't think it was "coined" by anyone in particular.

The mockery stands, and is not negated by anything in the article.
 
2013-04-28 02:46:52 PM  
This explains why I'm supposed to give money to certain political sides and organizations. Got it.

Will they let me fly in their jets and drive their SUVs? How many houses am I allowed to own?
 
2013-04-28 02:50:41 PM  

cthellis: studs up: So the author of the article is whackin it in the corner because he gets to point out that "climate change" was coined by a republican and isn't a liberal term at all. The correction at the end of the article negates his point, but dammit all, we're going to press anyway!
WTF is wrong with Slate?

No, he's mocking Fox and others' use of it as scare tactic and conspiracy-angled bullshiat now, whereas in the not-too-distant-past it was emphasized as the way Republicans SHOULD be talking about it, in their political strategy platform.

Luntz didn't "coin" it at all, and the Slate piece didn't make that claim.  The Luntz memo was made in 2002, IIRC, so it was emphasized at Republican strategy during the Bush years.  But now it's used as a different kind of amazingly kooky strategy.

The IPCC was founded back in the late 80's, and the usage of the term itself can be traced back to the 50's within the scientific literature dealing with such matters.  I don't think it was "coined" by anyone in particular.

The mockery stands, and is not negated by anything in the article.


FTFA: I've known for years that the term "climate change" was in fact promoted by Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who suggested using it because it's less "frightening" then saying "global warming"*. But as usual, facts won't stop the talking heads at Fox News, who claim it's a liberal term

Correction (Apr. 28 at 16:45 UTC): I originally wrote that Luntz coined the term "climate change", but the term was apparently first used in a 1975 paper by geochemist Wallace Broecker. Luntz heavily promoted the term for the reasons given above. My thanks to Ceth Eslick on Twitter for the correction.

If you meant the mockery of Slate as the WorldNet Daily of the left, sure. Defend away.
 
2013-04-28 02:54:59 PM  
this is so easy to fix
lob a couple of nukes at NK ...
the cloud cover will lower the temps for a short while
repeat as needed
use iran and saudi arabia as targets as needed to help balance things out where needed
 
2013-04-28 03:02:12 PM  
The people who watch Fox News want to live in their own little insular world. So let's let them -- cut off contact with them and stop passing Fox News links around.
 
2013-04-28 03:02:52 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: It seems the narrative has changed.  Used to be "greenhouse gases" and "global warming", now since temperatures have been flat for 15 years and we just got through the second coldest Jan-march in the U.S. ever recorded, the narrative is "global extremes not warming".

1)  He's a physicist talking outside of his discipline.
2)  How good can he be in his own field if he is teaching at Sonoma State?
3) People actually in the discipline don't seem to know what is going on.

As for myself, I have trouble believing that a 1/10th of 1% change in the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will make a whole heck of a lot of difference in global temperatures.   Now, should some credible data suggest otherwise, I will reconsider my position.


Wrong. The temperature is rising.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/13

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/13

Do I need to post more?
 
2013-04-28 03:17:49 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: The moment global warming/climate change became political it became impossible to have ANY intelligent discussion about it.

Oh, and if you don't think there is discussion to be had...you're part of the problem.  It's a scientific theory - there is ALWAYS discussion to be had.


There is a lot of discussion to be had, just as it is with evolution, where there are also many interesting questions that still need to be answered.   And just like with evolution, there are a bunch of scam artists denying reality in order to fleece money out of ignorant dupes who get all their information from Fox News and am radio.

Climate is changing, and we are contributing to the change.  The discussions we should be having are "how is this going to affect us?" "how is it going to affect future generations?" and "what, if anything should we do about it?"  Unfortunately, thanks to the paid shills and the dupes, we still have to listen to people claiming that it's not real.
 
2013-04-28 03:18:56 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/13


There is another interesting correlate to the increased anomalies.
The clean air act in 1970 led to massive reduction in particulates, which led to more warming (or less cooling).
http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/particulate-pollution-delay ed -climate-change-over-eastern-united-states.html

fun fun fun

/one silly/funny/possible solution to warming is ejection of sulfur into the upper atmosphere to increase cooling.
/or salt water or or or
/there is little to nothing that the western world can do to slow the acceleration of co2 emissions (china and india are increasing faster than western world is decreasing)
/so thinking about solutions now will help us later when we THINK we might want to actively try to cool things down.
/neutron bombs in the middle of the pacific ocean to increase cloud cooling? ROFL
/no really, when do things get bad enough that people start clamoring for the government to FIX it?? :D
 
2013-04-28 03:25:05 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: As for myself, I have trouble believing that a 1/10th of 1% change in the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will make a whole heck of a lot of difference in global temperatures.


#127.

Additionally, it's a change OF percentage, rather than change IN THE percentage; in terms of change, it's roughly one-third higher than the earliest direct atmospheric measurements.

Full numbered list, or organized into taxonomic categories.

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: It's a scientific theory - there is ALWAYS discussion to be had.


That does not make all discussion to be had consequently any more credible than discussion suggesting that gravitation is better described by an inverse-cube law.
 
2013-04-28 03:31:56 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: It seems the narrative has changed.  Used to be "greenhouse gases" and "global warming", now since temperatures have been flat for 15 years and we just got through the second coldest Jan-march in the U.S. ever recorded, the narrative is "global extremes not warming".

1)  He's a physicist talking outside of his discipline.
2)  How good can he be in his own field if he is teaching at Sonoma State?
3) People actually in the discipline don't seem to know what is going on.

As for myself, I have trouble believing that a 1/10th of 1% change in the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will make a whole heck of a lot of difference in global temperatures.   Now, should some credible data suggest otherwise, I will reconsider my position.


img.ffffound.com
 
2013-04-28 03:36:09 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: As for myself, I have trouble believing that a 1/10th of 1% change in the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will make a whole heck of a lot of difference in global temperatures.


The ozone layer is only 0.00006% of earth's atmosphere. Since that also sounds like a small number, that means it doesn't matter, right?
 
2013-04-28 03:40:21 PM  

DesertDemonWY: it ought to be called global colding now

[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


Oh my god, April 28 was slightly cooler than average, global warming is over.

MEANWHILE IN REALITY: We just had the 327th consecutive month during which the world average temperature for that month exceeded the 20th century average for that month.

But sure, keep pretending that there is no climate change. And if there is any it's perfectly natural. And if it isn't natural there's definitely nothing we can do about it. And if there is anything we can do it's way too expensive, unlike the price of climate change.

It's awful, but given the number of stupid, short sighted people who will refuse to let any action be taken until the oceanic conveyor shuts down or there's a massive calthrate blowout, I've basically concluded that disastrous climate change is now inevitable. We have a few decades, on the outside, until we pass a point of no return. But apparently the fact that scientists are alarmed by the state of the climate means there's nothing to be worried about. The idiots and the corrupt idiots will find excuses to do nothing until disaster is staring us in the face, and by then it will be too late.
 
2013-04-28 03:41:03 PM  

abb3w: Full numbered list, or organized into taxonomic categories.


oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
thank you
that is quite a nice collection!!

no really thanks
 
2013-04-28 04:15:51 PM  
I first started seeing Climate Change used here on Fark, to explain why it was colder. "global warming means BOTH, you sheep" got old, so people switched to Climate Change. Now, it's all bad!

Let's not forget this little study saying warming is slowing down that went virtually untouched in the public eye. I'm baffled as to why (sarcasm).

/while I do not believe in global warming, I DO BELIEVE THAT POLLUTION IS ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE AND NEEDS TO BE STOPPED
 
2013-04-28 04:18:47 PM  

DesertDemonWY: it ought to be called global colding now

[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


A one-month graph showing deviations of +1 to -1.
 
2013-04-28 04:19:52 PM  
Scientists started using the term "climate change" because conservatives are too stupid to comprehend that an overall global warming might make it colder in some places at some times.

Now, why people who are that stupid are even part of the discussion is beyond me.
 
2013-04-28 04:22:34 PM  

Spad31: This explains why I'm supposed to give money to certain political sides and organizations. Got it.

Will they let me fly in their jets and drive their SUVs? How many houses am I allowed to own?


You're an idiot. I mean, I could elaborate, but you have already demonstrated that you are not willing to use basic reasoning skills.
 
2013-04-28 04:29:12 PM  

namatad: no really thanks


De nada.

(Really. It's not my work; I just stumbled across it, as a result of some long-ago Fark thread.)
 
2013-04-28 04:29:34 PM  
Here's the problem:

It doesn't really matter.

There is simply no law or policy powerful enough to keep all that energy (and therefore wealth) in the ground.
 Therefore there are only two things that can be done.


1. Focus efforts on developing alternatives that can compete with fossil fuels well enough that policies to curtail their usage aren't completely hopeless (nuclear being pretty much the only thing so far that has a chance, though I'm not saying wind and solar won't help out--I am saying biofuels won't help, though), or

2. Deal with the apocalypse when it comes.

Conservation efforts like Kyoto will do jack nothing except delay the apocalypse by a tiny amount, maybe.
 
2013-04-28 04:30:10 PM  

sure haven't: I first started seeing Climate Change used here on Fark, to explain why it was colder. "global warming means BOTH, you sheep" got old, so people switched to Climate Change. Now, it's all bad!

Let's not forget this little study saying warming is slowing down that went virtually untouched in the public eye. I'm baffled as to why (sarcasm).

/while I do not believe in global warming, I DO BELIEVE THAT POLLUTION IS ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE AND NEEDS TO BE STOPPED


i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-28 04:30:11 PM  

sure haven't: Let's not forget this little study saying warming is slowing down that went virtually untouched in the public eye. I'm baffled as to why (sarcasm).


Reuters? Can you find the technical journal citation?
 
2013-04-28 04:30:35 PM  

sure haven't: I first started seeing Climate Change used here on Fark, to explain why it was colder. "global warming means BOTH, you sheep" got old, so people switched to Climate Change. Now, it's all bad!

Let's not forget this little study saying warming is slowing down that went virtually untouched in the public eye. I'm baffled as to why (sarcasm).

/while I do not believe in global warming, I DO BELIEVE THAT POLLUTION IS ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE AND NEEDS TO BE STOPPED


MEANWHILE IN REALITY: We just had the 327th consecutive month during which the world average temperature for that month exceeded the 20th century average for that month.

The latest derp tactic is to literally just lie. Change the narrative. Put the dastardly scienticians on the defensive. Nevermind that the temperature anomaly is still increasing. Nevermind that the data has never showed a new "cooling trend" that is the latest tactic on the political front.

You are literally being lied to about the most basic of things - the climate continues to change, the global temperature is still on the increase. It has not stopped warming.

/thanks to Erik k for the "Meanwhile in reality" bit.
 
2013-04-28 04:34:28 PM  

sure haven't: I first started seeing Climate Change used here on Fark, to explain why it was colder. "global warming means BOTH, you sheep" got old, so people switched to Climate Change. Now, it's all bad!

Let's not forget this little study saying warming is slowing down that went virtually untouched in the public eye. I'm baffled as to why (sarcasm).

/while I do not believe in global warming, I DO BELIEVE THAT POLLUTION IS ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE AND NEEDS TO BE STOPPED


Can we have a direct link to the study? When the news media does a story on anything having to do with a scientific discovery, they always get it completely wrong.
 
2013-04-28 04:39:53 PM  

LavenderWolf: Spad31: This explains why I'm supposed to give money to certain political sides and organizations. Got it.

Will they let me fly in their jets and drive their SUVs? How many houses am I allowed to own?

You're an idiot. I mean, I could elaborate, but you have already demonstrated that you are not willing to use basic reasoning skills.


I think he could make his point better by recognizing that neither party is doing much to fix the problem, as far as legislation goes.
 
2013-04-28 04:43:38 PM  
derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp
derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp
derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp
derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp
derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp
derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp
derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp
 
2013-04-28 04:46:57 PM  
I know a climate scientist that will farking smack you if you refer to it as "global warming" and not "climate change."
 
2013-04-28 04:54:50 PM  

LavenderWolf: The latest derp tactic is to literally just lie. Change the narrative. Put the dastardly scienticians on the defensive. Nevermind that the temperature anomaly is still increasing. Nevermind that the data has never showed a new "cooling trend" that is the latest tactic on the political front.


the fark you say
models.weatherbell.com
 
2013-04-28 05:03:10 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: 3) People actually in the discipline don't seem to know what is going on.

As for myself, I have trouble believing that a 1/10th of 1% change in the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will make a whole heck of a lot of difference in global temperatures. Now, should some credible data suggest otherwise, I will reconsider my position.


They do, you're just not one of them (and apparently not interested in educating yourself).

There is lots of credible data. Go find it.
 
2013-04-28 05:06:32 PM  

DesertDemonWY: LavenderWolf: The latest derp tactic is to literally just lie. Change the narrative. Put the dastardly scienticians on the defensive. Nevermind that the temperature anomaly is still increasing. Nevermind that the data has never showed a new "cooling trend" that is the latest tactic on the political front.

the fark you say
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


That is for only 180 days. It does not tell the whole story. Hell, it does not tell *any* story.
 
2013-04-28 05:10:08 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: DesertDemonWY: LavenderWolf: The latest derp tactic is to literally just lie. Change the narrative. Put the dastardly scienticians on the defensive. Nevermind that the temperature anomaly is still increasing. Nevermind that the data has never showed a new "cooling trend" that is the latest tactic on the political front.

the fark you say
[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

That is for only 180 days. It does not tell the whole story. Hell, it does not tell *any* story.


Not really. Please look at the time scale on the bottom of the graph. The graph just happens to have the 180 day and 30 trend written in. Even then a glimpse of only 4 years is too small to see any long term change.
 
2013-04-28 05:11:04 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: That is for only 180 days. It does not tell the whole story. Hell, it does not tell *any* story.


You may want to check the x-axis again Einstein
 
2013-04-28 05:11:59 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: It seems the narrative has changed.  Used to be "greenhouse gases" and "global warming", now since temperatures have been flat for 15 years and we just got through the second coldest Jan-march in the U.S. ever recorded, the narrative is "global extremes not warming".

As for myself, I have trouble believing that a 1/10th of 1% change in the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will make a whole heck of a lot of difference in global temperatures.   Now, should some credible data suggest otherwise, I will reconsider my position.


I don't know which hole you are pulling your stats out of, but the Jan-Mar US temperature was above the century-scale mean.

And therein lies the difference.  Last year we got stuck in a massive warm pattern, and it finished as the #1 hottest year on record.  This year we got stuck in a massive cold pattern, and we are 74th warmest out of 119 years through March.
 
2013-04-28 05:14:03 PM  
Serious question: is AGW officially dead as a term? If so, what's the new verbiage?
 
2013-04-28 05:15:51 PM  
I always find it amusing how TV commentators and politicians think they know more about science than the scientists who gather, analyze and report on the actual data. Then when you tell them that, they claim that it's all somehow a big conspiracy, which of course then makes even less sense.
 
2013-04-28 05:16:02 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Zeppelininthesky: That is for only 180 days. It does not tell the whole story. Hell, it does not tell *any* story.

You may want to check the x-axis again Einstein


You may want to leave the climatology to people who've actually studied it.  I.e. not you.
 
2013-04-28 05:16:10 PM  
Your corpses will freeze and burn.
 
2013-04-28 05:16:54 PM  

studs up: Serious question: is AGW officially dead as a term? If so, what's the new verbiage?


Have the AGWers rebranded their lies again?
 
2013-04-28 05:18:10 PM  
aerojockey:

Conservation efforts like Kyoto will do jack nothing except delay the apocalypse by a tiny amount, maybe.


The same is true of medical science, of course.  We're all going to die eventually.  Modern medicine does nothing except delay the inevitable by a tiny amount.

Nevertheless, some say that tiny amount is valuable.
 
Displayed 50 of 135 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report