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.

(Guardian)   Regarding some 4,000 academic papers published in the last 20 years, 97.1% conclude that human activity is responsible for climate change   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 545
    More: Obvious, climatologies, human behavior, climate change, research papers, contrarians, abstracts, climate policy, Environmental Research Letters  
•       •       •

2742 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 May 2013 at 10:08 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-17 01:31:13 AM  
"In the matter of a difficult question, it is more likely that the correct answer will be derived by the few than by the many." Rene Descartes.
 
2013-05-17 01:41:13 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: "In the matter of a difficult question, it is more likely that the correct answer will be derived by the few than by the many." Rene Descartes.


Which was exactly the case... 40 years ago.  Then the many see that they were right, and jump on the bandwagon.
 
2013-05-17 02:38:00 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: "In the matter of a difficult question, it is more likely that the correct answer will be derived by the few than by the many." Rene Descartes.


And in this case, the "few" are the climate scientists, and the "many" are the mouth breathing morons who make up the majority of the world's population
 
2013-05-17 03:33:57 AM  
Well yeah.  Pirates are humans, and pirate reduction is a man-made trend.

media.treehugger.com
 
2013-05-17 03:50:13 AM  
only "0.7% or 83 of those thousands of academic articles, disputed the scientific consensus that climate change is the result of human activity"

Jury is still out...

/prefers it warm anyway
 
2013-05-17 03:58:05 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: "In the matter of a difficult question, it is more likely that the correct answer will be derived by the few than by the many." Rene Descartes.


Descartes got more or less everything wrong including such classics as mind body distinction and the ontological argument. He is the poster child for getting everything wrong.

He's up there with Lamarck, BF Skinner and a few others in the "sorry you're entire life was a waste" category.
 
2013-05-17 03:58:52 AM  
your

ftfm and such as
 
2013-05-17 06:17:02 AM  
I still can't believe this issue has been polarized on party lines. It should be about science, but instead it's about mobilizing a bunch of water-carriers for big business. That the deniers are almost exclusively Republican should tell you something. That seemingly every right wing pundit is against it but have no science of their own backing it up is another clue.

Climate change (or whatever you wish to call it) is a prime example of the Kochs of the world using propaganda to convince Jerry and Sally from Jacksonville to violently reject reality. What do you folks think you'll get out of this deal, loading those buckets with fresh water so your masters won't have to adjust how they operate? Do we have similar arguments about the periodic table? Why not? Because this isn't about science.

To be fair, I'm not qualified to parse all the data provided by he scientific community. However, when confronted with an issue I'm not versed in I tend to defer to the people who actually make a living studying this sh*t, and not Rush Limbaugh.
 
2013-05-17 06:18:06 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: BarkingUnicorn: "In the matter of a difficult question, it is more likely that the correct answer will be derived by the few than by the many." Rene Descartes.

And in this case, the "few" are the climate scientists, and the "many" are the mouth breathing morons who make up the majority of the world's population


Pretty sure you just got told, BarkingUnicorn.
 
2013-05-17 06:49:13 AM  
In the scifi apocalyptic-type movies someone always points out "humans are a species finally gifted enough to try and avert our own extinction"or some crap along those lines.

I prefer to see it this way:

We're the first species gifted enough to cause the extinction of ourselves and many others!

(that is if you don't subscribe to the 'Epic Telepath War' theory of the dinosaur extinction. Which should not be so quickly dismissed by the scientific community by the way.)

I think we should take it as a point of pride.

When evolution gives you lemons in the form of a genetic disposition to devour, destroy and propagate yourselves out of the very environment that permits your sensitive and vulnerable meatbag bodies to exist, make lemonade.
 
2013-05-17 08:17:03 AM  
Because publishers refuse to publish papers that say otherwise, no matter how sound the science may be.
 
2013-05-17 08:34:31 AM  

Tigger: BarkingUnicorn: "In the matter of a difficult question, it is more likely that the correct answer will be derived by the few than by the many." Rene Descartes.

Descartes got more or less everything wrong including such classics as mind body distinction and the ontological argument. He is the poster child for getting everything wrong.

He's up there with Lamarck, BF Skinner and a few others in the "sorry you're entire life was a waste" category.


His contributions to mathematics still stand.
 
2013-05-17 08:37:38 AM  
Regardling?
 
2013-05-17 08:41:21 AM  
Chinese industry couldn't give two shiats about the academic papers. They will move on reducing emissions when it becomes politically impossible to not do so - and that's got fark-all to do with farxists and everything to do with a billion or so royally pissed-off Chinese.
 
2013-05-17 08:57:32 AM  

Gulper Eel: Chinese industry couldn't give two shiats about the academic papers. They will move on reducing emissions when it becomes politically impossible to not do so - and that's got fark-all to do with farxists and everything to do with a billion or so royally pissed-off Chinese.


Some of us will laugh when the Chinese experience a surge in cancer rates in the coming years thanks to their environmental pollution.

I think its going to be one of those self correcting problems.
 
2013-05-17 09:06:47 AM  

MurphyMurphy: We're the first species gifted enough to cause the extinction of ourselves and many others!


Well, except for the photosynthesizing bacteria around 2.4 billion years ago that caused the Great Oxygen Event and wiped out over 90% of life on the planet when they succeeded in poisoning the atmosphere. ;)
 
2013-05-17 09:21:51 AM  

SlothB77: Because publishers refuse to publish papers that say otherwise, no matter how sound the science may be.


For example?
 
2013-05-17 09:22:55 AM  
Counterpoint:

Al Gore lives in a big house

QED
 
2013-05-17 09:28:17 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Gulper Eel: Chinese industry couldn't give two shiats about the academic papers. They will move on reducing emissions when it becomes politically impossible to not do so - and that's got fark-all to do with farxists and everything to do with a billion or so royally pissed-off Chinese.

Some of us will laugh when the Chinese experience a surge in cancer rates in the coming years thanks to their environmental pollution.

I think its going to be one of those self correcting problems.


Go fark yourself.
 
2013-05-17 09:39:06 AM  

SlothB77: Because publishers refuse to publish papers that say otherwise, no matter how sound the science may be.


Perhaps if you worked in the sciences you would have the slightest idea of what you were talking about. Stop making up a process you have zero knowledge of.

Rule #1 of Science: nothing motivates scientists more than proving other scientists wrong.
 
2013-05-17 09:40:57 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Gulper Eel: Chinese industry couldn't give two shiats about the academic papers. They will move on reducing emissions when it becomes politically impossible to not do so - and that's got fark-all to do with farxists and everything to do with a billion or so royally pissed-off Chinese.

Some of us will laugh when the Chinese experience a surge in cancer rates in the coming years thanks to their environmental pollution.

I think its going to be one of those self correcting problems.


Or it could just be those nasty-ass Chinese cigarettes. I think P.J. O'Rourke referred to them as "severe nails".
 
2013-05-17 09:45:26 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: SlothB77: Because publishers refuse to publish papers that say otherwise, no matter how sound the science may be.

Perhaps if you worked in the sciences you would have the slightest idea of what you were talking about. Stop making up a process you have zero knowledge of.

Rule #1 of Science: nothing motivates scientists more than proving other scientists wrong.


This, seriously. My degree is in engineering, and I can't count the number of times that as I left the lecture hall I overheard a conversation in which some pithy nerd was getting a rageboner about how he had this AMAZING idea that would prove the professor TOTALLY wrong. Invariably, nothing would come of this.

fark, when scientists (and academics in general) "gossip" about each other, it consists mostly of talking about how some person's ideas are just so terribly wrong, and they'll show 'em one day. One day...
 
2013-05-17 09:47:35 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: SlothB77: Because publishers refuse to publish papers that say otherwise, no matter how sound the science may be.

For example?


He doesn't have examples because they aren't published.  We're through the looking glass, people.
 
2013-05-17 09:47:47 AM  
So I'll ask this again: what's the flip side that would justify a WORLD WIDE cover-up?  Why are scientists world wide all colluding to oppress American energy companies?  This is a contentious issue pretty much only in the US, whereas those that will feel the brunt of climate change first are developing-world countries, with seaward-concentrated populations, fragile food supplies, and poor infrastructure.

Who's doling out the bribes, how are they covering it up, and who could possibly afford to out-spend the energy industry?
 
2013-05-17 09:51:05 AM  
Even all the climate change that occurred before humans?

/Let it go, guys.  It's over.  You're not getting the money.
 
2013-05-17 09:59:36 AM  

doyner: Marcus Aurelius: SlothB77: Because publishers refuse to publish papers that say otherwise, no matter how sound the science may be.

For example?

He doesn't have examples because they aren't published.  We're through the looking glass, people.


Silly me.  Of course.  What was I thinking.
 
2013-05-17 09:59:56 AM  

Gulper Eel: Or it could just be those nasty-ass Chinese cigarettes. I think P.J. O'Rourke referred to them as "severe nails".


Either China is going to self correct the worlds population, or we'll get our first batch of X-Men from them

Weapon X, also known as Worferine
 
2013-05-17 10:05:39 AM  
Well, not EXACTLY.  Carbon Dioxide is largely responsible, and humans activity is a major source of that.  Not the only source, but certainly the only one we are able to control.  Let's not over-simplify here.
 
2013-05-17 10:09:29 AM  

nekom: Well, not EXACTLY.  Carbon Dioxide is largely responsible, and humans activity is a major source of that.  Not the only source, but certainly the only one we are able to control.  Let's not over-simplify here.


We can't control the methane emissions from drilling operations?  We can't limit our consumption of meat to reduce the methane footprint involved in beef and pork production?  How about that.
 
2013-05-17 10:11:06 AM  
clearly we need to reduce greenhouse gases, so use beano
 
2013-05-17 10:12:17 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: BarkingUnicorn: "In the matter of a difficult question, it is more likely that the correct answer will be derived by the few than by the many." Rene Descartes.

And in this case, the "few" are the climate scientists, and the "many" are the mouth breathing morons who make up the majority of the world's population


*ohsnap.jpg*
 
2013-05-17 10:14:35 AM  
Best plot I have ever seen:

scienceblogs.com
 
2013-05-17 10:15:17 AM  
Follow the money... the truth is usually in the opposite direction.
 
2013-05-17 10:15:19 AM  

GiantRex: PC LOAD LETTER: SlothB77: Because publishers refuse to publish papers that say otherwise, no matter how sound the science may be.

Perhaps if you worked in the sciences you would have the slightest idea of what you were talking about. Stop making up a process you have zero knowledge of.

Rule #1 of Science: nothing motivates scientists more than proving other scientists wrong.

This, seriously. My degree is in engineering, and I can't count the number of times that as I left the lecture hall I overheard a conversation in which some pithy nerd was getting a rageboner about how he had this AMAZING idea that would prove the professor TOTALLY wrong. Invariably, nothing would come of this.

fark, when scientists (and academics in general) "gossip" about each other, it consists mostly of talking about how some person's ideas are just so terribly wrong, and they'll show 'em one day. One day...


Yep. You almost never hear a professor go on and on about another researchers great ideas. They only talk about another's "silly ideas."
 
2013-05-17 10:15:20 AM  
factoryconnection: This is a contentious issue pretty much only in the US

That's because the U.S. is the easy "mark" in this particular shakedown attempt.  Poor countries see only upside in joining the hysteria; they would be entirely on the receiving end of any wealth redistribution that may occur.  Developing countries have no problem letting America handicap itself to be less competitive - they are happy to talk the talk if it gets us to walk the walk.  Only fat, gullible U.S of A. is in the position to be guilted into parting with lots of money and adopting policies that will cripple us economically.

/If only they could hustle cash from the Sun itself, or from farting cows.  It wouldn't be contentious then, we'd all be on board
 
2013-05-17 10:15:41 AM  
Well they would, wouldn't they?
Because humas are the center, the alpha, the omega, the root of all causation.

Judas priest.
 
2013-05-17 10:16:05 AM  

SlothB77: Because publishers refuse to publish papers that say otherwise, no matter how sound the science may be.


Exactly this. The climate change junkies are like protestors. They make all the noise so they get all the recognition. The majority of scientist in the world believe that man has effected climate change, but that the majority of the climate change that we are experiencing is natural and is in synch with the history of the earth. The earth has been through this before and the cycle continues.
 
2013-05-17 10:16:35 AM  
So, as my Mom used to say, "If everyone jumps off a cliff, are you going too?"

Not sure where you get your Profiteering Bullchit, but where I get mine, .03% is important, but hardly a world changer.
 
2013-05-17 10:16:38 AM  
Nobody was upset when man ended the ice age.....just sayin...
 
2013-05-17 10:17:13 AM  
Tigger: //Descartes got more or less everything wrong including such classics as mind body distinction and the ontological argument. He is the poster child for getting everything wrong.//

I see what you're saying, but I disagree on the "poster child" bit.

/Aristotle
 
2013-05-17 10:18:25 AM  

MurphyMurphy: I prefer to see it this way:

We're the first species gifted enough to cause the extinction of ourselves and many others!


An algal bloom was likely responsible for at least one, if not several of the major extinction events.  That means algae has been FAR more gifted in this regard than humanity.  There are also plenty of other species who have ruined their environment and driven themselves to extinction.  Humans are merely the most recent.

The big difference is that we can  recognize what we're doing, and take steps to prevent it before we reach that end point.
 
2013-05-17 10:18:26 AM  
I just did a study that says 97.1% of all human research on this planet is the result of human activity.
 
2013-05-17 10:20:24 AM  
Apparently the Blues and Greys want the Earth a tad warmer.
Whut's da fuss 'bout?
 
2013-05-17 10:20:44 AM  

pseudoscience: Best plot I have ever seen:

[scienceblogs.com image 600x437]


I blame Zorro...
 
2013-05-17 10:20:55 AM  

Il Douchey: factoryconnection: This is a contentious issue pretty much only in the US

That's because the U.S. is the easy "mark" in this particular shakedown attempt.  Poor countries see only upside in joining the hysteria; they would be entirely on the receiving end of any wealth redistribution that may occur.  Developing countries have no problem letting America handicap itself to be less competitive - they are happy to talk the talk if it gets us to walk the walk.  Only fat, gullible U.S of A. is in the position to be guilted into parting with lots of money and adopting policies that will cripple us economically.

/If only they could hustle cash from the Sun itself, or from farting cows.  It wouldn't be contentious then, we'd all be on board


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-17 10:21:26 AM  

doyner: Marcus Aurelius: SlothB77: Because publishers refuse to publish papers that say otherwise, no matter how sound the science may be.

For example?

He doesn't have examples because they aren't published.  We're through the looking glass, people.


I hope he's comfortable in the realm of unfalsifiability then.
 
2013-05-17 10:22:22 AM  
The problem is, these are "Academic Papers"  And we all know academia is the work of the devil brought forth by libruls and their learnin.

The scientists are just looking for grant money.
 
2013-05-17 10:22:24 AM  

Thorak: MurphyMurphy: I prefer to see it this way:

We're the first species gifted enough to cause the extinction of ourselves and many others!

An algal bloom was likely responsible for at least one, if not several of the major extinction events.  That means algae has been FAR more gifted in this regard than humanity.  There are also plenty of other species who have ruined their environment and driven themselves to extinction.  Humans are merely the most recent.

The big difference is that we can  recognize what we're doing, and take steps to prevent it before we reach that end point.


If you actually believe that, you have swallowed the blue pill. Keep in lockstep there, comrade.
 
2013-05-17 10:23:37 AM  
So?
 
2013-05-17 10:24:31 AM  
Most of the lead deniers know that they're lying about an issue that could realistically lead to the destruction of over 90% of the world's population (if not the entire human race) as well as most of the world's living species, within just a few generations. And they're doing it purely for momentary self-enrichment, at a time of record global inequality between rich and poor.

That makes them without exaggeration potentially the greatest villains in all of human history. Link
 
Displayed 50 of 545 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | 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