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.

(Denver Post)   The first decade of the new millennium showed the most global warming EVAR. Nothing extreme here, move along citizens   (denverpost.com) divider line 352
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

6098 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jul 2013 at 12:54 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-03 02:39:45 PM

DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]


Here you go:

IPCC models use the emission scenarios discussed above to estimate average global temperature increases by the year 2100. Projection: The IPCC 2007 assessment projected a worst-case temperature rise of 4.3° to 11.5° Fahrenheit, with a high probability of 7.2°F.

Reality: We are currently on track for a rise of between 6.3° and 13.3°F, with a high probability of an increase of 9.4°F by 2100, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Other modelers are getting similar results, including a study published earlier this month by the Global Carbon Project consortium confirming the likelihood of a 9ºF rise.


Now answer my questions.
 
2013-07-03 02:40:03 PM
Watch me not care.
 
2013-07-03 02:41:17 PM
I just wanna know why my 2013 Toyota Camry Hybrid is at fault for all of this but Al Gore's 1970 era Gulfstream belches out more CO2 to cover Asia's entire footprint. Lies, damned lies and then there are statistics. I am still waiting on the Ice age that was predicted to happen in the 1980's.
 
2013-07-03 02:41:22 PM

DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]


Here is more:

Projection: The IPCC has always confidently projected that the Arctic ice pack was safe at least until 2050 or well beyond 2100.

Reality: Summer ice is thinning faster than every climate projection, and today scientists predict an ice-free Arctic in years, not decades. Last summer, Arctic sea ice extent plummeted to 1.32 million square miles, the lowest level ever recorded - 50 percent below the long-term 1979 to 2000 average.



The IPCC so far has been mostly wrong on the side of them saying effects would not be so bad.
 
2013-07-03 02:43:28 PM

Farking Canuck: Who actually wants to destroy their own economy and what government would actually implement measures like this?


traceyevelynbeautifulyou.com
 
2013-07-03 02:44:18 PM

Realist29: I just wanna know why my 2013 Toyota Camry Hybrid is at fault for all of this but Al Gore's 1970 era Gulfstream belches out more CO2 to cover Asia's entire footprint. Lies, damned lies and then there are statistics. I am still waiting on the Ice age that was predicted to happen in the 1980's.


And then there's hyperbole, which is what you're doing.
 
2013-07-03 02:44:41 PM

Realist29: I just wanna know why my 2013 Toyota Camry Hybrid is at fault for all of this but Al Gore's 1970 era Gulfstream belches out more CO2 to cover Asia's entire footprint. Lies, damned lies and then there are statistics. I am still waiting on the Ice age that was predicted to happen in the 1980's.


Holy shiat this has been debunked so many times. The "Ice age" thing was created by the media the majority of scientist thought it was BS. Just like how climate change deniers now are pretending lots of people are skeptical of climate change where in the scientific community that is not true.
 
2013-07-03 02:45:05 PM

netizencain: I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.


same here.  i don't think many people deny that the cont'd destruction of the planet is contributing to global warming, but, at the same time, it has become such a polarizing issue that it's hard to have a conversation about.  you know, kind of like...religion.
 
2013-07-03 02:46:14 PM
You know climate change deniers believing that a) climate change is not happening and B) Climate change is happening but not man made, shows you are full of shiat because those positions contradict each other.
 
2013-07-03 02:46:16 PM

Realist29: I just wanna know why my 2013 Toyota Camry Hybrid is at fault for all of this but Al Gore's 1970 era Gulfstream belches out more CO2 to cover Asia's entire footprint. Lies, damned lies and then there are statistics. I am still waiting on the Ice age that was predicted to happen in the 1980's.


If you're in favor of limiting corporate and private jet usage where it's environmentally harmful, I think you'll find little opposition except from republicans.
 
2013-07-03 02:47:25 PM

Corvus: You know climate change deniers believing that a) climate change is not happening and B) Climate change is happening but not man made, shows you are full of shiat because those positions contradict each other.


Moving goalposts make the political football game much easier to win.  It's all about winning.
 
2013-07-03 02:47:41 PM
the "media" creates things? Go figure.
 
2013-07-03 02:47:51 PM

stir22: netizencain: I'm not denying global temperature rising, but I hate the science that some people use.

same here.  i don't think many people deny that the cont'd destruction of the planet is contributing to global warming, but, at the same time, it has become such a polarizing issue that it's hard to have a conversation about.  you know, kind of like...religion.


Many people in this very thread is saying climate change does not exist and it's not man made. Don't know how you can think many people don't think that.

Yes they might not think it logically. To them it is 100% political belief but that still doesn't mean they don't think it.
 
2013-07-03 02:48:15 PM
A real (and sad) figure (Hamilton and Stampone 2013):

www.public.iastate.edu
 
2013-07-03 02:49:48 PM

ikanreed: Corvus: You know climate change deniers believing that a) climate change is not happening and B) Climate change is happening but not man made, shows you are full of shiat because those positions contradict each other.

Moving goalposts make the political football game much easier to win.  It's all about winning.


It's amazing because they will make BOTH arguments. Also they never argue with someone other denier making a claim that contradicts them if global warming exist or not.

It's proof that they are not looking at the debate logically and to them it's only a partisan political issue that they believe because it's  "their team" or because they want to believe it.
 
2013-07-03 02:50:19 PM
All I know is that it's supposed to hit 110 F in northern CA today. Just like yesterday and the day before...
I'm seriously considering moving to Antarctica.
 
2013-07-03 02:52:55 PM
Cool story bro:

I made this image several years ago for Fark:

whowhatwhy.com


Then this showed up 4 months later:

blogontherun.files.wordpress.com

Then a US Senator printed this and showed it on the Senate floor 2 months ago:

www.whitehouse.senate.gov

I feel like I should have copyrighted it or something.
 
2013-07-03 02:53:00 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Corvus: HotIgneous Intruder: All you need to know...

Twelve thousands yeas ago, there was a mile of ice above what is now Albany, NY.
Conditions have improved quite a bit since then.
Chesapeake Bay formed out of the glacial meltwater.
Bering land bridge flooded, keeping them Rooskies at bay.

/Interglacial warming, how werk it.

Yes climate changes no one is disputing that but what you are describing are climate changing that happened over HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of years NOT DECADES.

When it happens slowly the environment can respond and change, but not when it is fast.

No.
I'm saying it happened over 12,000 years. Not hundreds of thousands of years.
And so what?

Adapt or die.
Move away from the oceans.
Don't build your house in the desert or in forest subject to burning over.

Send your money to people in suits.
It's the only way!


Yeah, screw our fellow human beings!
 
2013-07-03 02:54:00 PM

DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]


Here is a third example showing you wrong:

Projection: In 1995, IPCC projected "little change in the extent of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets... over the next 50-100 years." In 2007 IPCC embraced a drastic revision: "New data... show[s] that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003."
 Reality: Today, ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica is trending at least 100 years ahead of projections compared to IPCC's first three reports.
 
2013-07-03 02:54:01 PM

Mikey1969: boarch: Maybe you should move out of the farking desert, genius.

Maybe you should learn the farking DEFINITION of desert, genius.

Because Antarctica is a dry polar region with about five percent humidity, no liquid lakes or rivers, it is the driest continent on earth.

The interior of Antarctica is considered the world's driest desert because the extreme cold freezes water vapour out of the air. Annual snowfall on the polar plateau is equivalent to less than 5 cm of rain.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Antarctica_a_desert


You still live in the desert... Just because some are cold doesn't change the soundness of my advice.
 
2013-07-03 02:54:05 PM
I'm a proud participant by helping to accelerate global warming.
 
2013-07-03 02:54:11 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: I'm seriously considering moving to Antarctica.

Norway is easier but not cheaper. You must be adept at dodging random falafels.
 
2013-07-03 02:55:15 PM
The United States government can't track people with expired Visas. How am I supposed to believe that in their infinite wisdom they can track global warming(oh wait its "climate change" now) trends with any degree of accuracy or truth? Didn't the "tree ring" theory debunk years worth of feigned altruism in the English climate science community? How do we know it was colder in 1865 than it is now? Great Great Grandpa's diary entries about his trick knee?
 
2013-07-03 02:55:32 PM

thurstonxhowell: jst3p: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Main page? Wasn't it decided that since we as a country allow retards to vote, global warming threads had to be on the politics page so the Teatards could scream NUH UH! a lot?

/It's already too late. If the oil and coal companies simply sell their current inventory (including the stuff they own but is still in the ground), there is no model that doesn't predict a minimum 2 degree C increase in temperature, most models 5 degrees. That's catastrophic on this sort of time scale.

Serious question: Why? Wont we adapt?

To "adapt", in this case, means many people die.


I'm cool with that. We could lose 80% of the population and not miss a beat. Also our natural resources will last 5 times as long
 
2013-07-03 02:55:52 PM

thurstonxhowell: HotIgneous Intruder: durbnpoisn: One of a few things could happen:
-  The antarctic ice sheet might break off.

Derp.
The Antarctic ice sheet in on land.

You fail.
0/10

No shiat it's on land. It wouldn't do much to sea levels if it wasn't.


Yeah, seriously, did you think I was implying that it was hanging over the ocean like a shelf?
Point is, if it breaks up, melts, and goes into the oceans, THAT would be a problem.  (I'm agreeing with the 2nd poster, and responding to the 1st)
 
2013-07-03 02:57:22 PM

Confabulat: I swear, global warming deniers think the universe is run by magic or something.


It is the refrain of conspiracy theorists everywhere - if there is one tiny part of something they don't understand, that disproves the whole thing. Even if there are a thousand websites that clearly explain it, as long as they avoid going there they can believe whatever they like based on their own ignorance - look at moon landing hoaxers, they know some random fact about there being no wind on the moon, and they see a flag moving, therefore the entire thing is a hoax, never mind that things can move for reasons other than wind, or how the US convinced the USSR to go along with it. Equally the idea that uniquely climate scientists are perpetrating a massive hoax, while the real truth is funded by oil companies just trying to fight this corruption out of the goodness of their hearts, is just so mindbogglingly stupid it beggar's belief there are more than a handful of cranks that will accept it.
 
2013-07-03 02:58:00 PM

CruJones: While I believe in climate change, you can't deny that it's possibly a natural cycle.  There is no definitive proof.  I mean the earth has warmed and cooled many times.


Maybe it is time for the Earth to warm up--but we are also dumping additional CO2 into the atmosphere at the same time.  The concentration of CO2 is already significantly higher than it was at any point during the last six glaciation cycles; we have nudged things into an unexplored portion of the parameter space.

Heat waves occur naturally, and the infirm tend to naturally have a higher mortality rate during them, but that doesn't mean you can throw a big fluffy comforter over someone during a heat wave and claim they died of "natural causes".
 
2013-07-03 02:58:16 PM

DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]


Example number 4:

Projection: In the 2001 report, the IPCC projected a sea rise of 2 millimeters per year. The worst-case scenario in the 2007 report, which looked mostly at thermal expansion of the oceans as temperatures warmed, called for up to 1.9 feet of sea-level-rise by century's end.

Today: Observed sea-level-rise has averaged 3.3 millimeters per year since 1990. By 2009, various studies that included ice-melt offered drastically higher projections of between 2.4 and 6.2 feet sea level rise by 2100.



See most of the IPCC has been wrong be being too conservative.
 
2013-07-03 02:59:55 PM

HaywoodJablonski: thurstonxhowell: jst3p: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Main page? Wasn't it decided that since we as a country allow retards to vote, global warming threads had to be on the politics page so the Teatards could scream NUH UH! a lot?

/It's already too late. If the oil and coal companies simply sell their current inventory (including the stuff they own but is still in the ground), there is no model that doesn't predict a minimum 2 degree C increase in temperature, most models 5 degrees. That's catastrophic on this sort of time scale.

Serious question: Why? Wont we adapt?

To "adapt", in this case, means many people die.

I'm cool with that. We could lose 80% of the population and not miss a beat. Also our natural resources will last 5 times as long


www.simplyrecipes.com
 
2013-07-03 02:59:59 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Realist29: I just wanna know why my 2013 Toyota Camry Hybrid is at fault for all of this but Al Gore's 1970 era Gulfstream belches out more CO2 to cover Asia's entire footprint. Lies, damned lies and then there are statistics. I am still waiting on the Ice age that was predicted to happen in the 1980's.

And then there's hyperbole, which is what you're doing.


That's not necessarily hyperbolic. It's more like general stupidity.

/and sh*tty trolling
 
2013-07-03 03:01:20 PM

Alunan: Cool story bro:

I made this image several years ago for Fark:

[whowhatwhy.com image 600x800]


Then this showed up 4 months later:

[blogontherun.files.wordpress.com image 607x819]

Then a US Senator printed this and showed it on the Senate floor 2 months ago:

[www.whitehouse.senate.gov image 683x457]

I feel like I should have copyrighted it or something.


You're still awesome though. Nice work
 
2013-07-03 03:01:30 PM
genner: Confabulat: Kirzania: Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?
[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]

That's what climatologists DO. They figure out why things change.

I swear, global warming deniers say "natural variations!" and throw up their hands like that explains a damn thing. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

Scientists don't go "natural variations!" and quit their jobs, idiot. They figure out what's up. Do you think it never occurred to a climatologist that "natural variations!" occur? Of course they know that! It's what they do!

The problem is there's too much money on both sides of the debate and not enough scientists that are willing to piss off the people who are giving them grant money. It's no wonder there's so little trust in the scientific method.


As a scientist and card carrying member of the American Geophysical Union, I'm getting a kick out of your comments.

Do you know how to make your name, in a good way, as a politician? Get elected year after year?  Proudly proclaim a viewpoint that people with votes and/or money (preferably both) want to hear.  Shovel money to your constituency.  Determining facts and truth are more or less irrelevant.

Do you know how you make your name as a scientist?  Get a guaranteed job for life?  Overturning the orthodoxy.  There is no scientific debate on global warming, it is almost as thoroughly accepted amongst climate scientists as classical mechanics classical E&M (Maxwell's equations) were in the 19th century.  (I say "almost" because while I am aware of polls amongst climate scientists in which 99% accept anthropogenic global warming, and 1% did not respond.  I am unaware of any such polls on classical mechanics in the 19th century and I assume it was 100% accepted.)  Einstein and Bohr made their names by overthrowing the orthodoxy and explaining previously unexplained data with new theories.  So far, there is no unexplained data for climate scientists to use to overthrow global warming and create new theories.  Every measurement, every model refinement, every new understanding of important details like how clouds affect warming has strengthened the case for anthropogenic global warming.

Now excuse me while I get back to my plans for destroying the economy, so I can, er, um,... Ur, no, so my kids, can, um, aw geez, I haven't been thinking far enough ahead to figure that out yet.  Must be my continually breaking out in maniacal laughter.
 
2013-07-03 03:02:59 PM

HaywoodJablonski: thurstonxhowell: jst3p: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Main page? Wasn't it decided that since we as a country allow retards to vote, global warming threads had to be on the politics page so the Teatards could scream NUH UH! a lot?

/It's already too late. If the oil and coal companies simply sell their current inventory (including the stuff they own but is still in the ground), there is no model that doesn't predict a minimum 2 degree C increase in temperature, most models 5 degrees. That's catastrophic on this sort of time scale.

Serious question: Why? Wont we adapt?

To "adapt", in this case, means many people die.

I'm cool with that. We could lose 80% of the population and not miss a beat. Also our natural resources will last 5 times as long


So do us all a favor and be the 1% of that 80%.

I'm cool with that.
 
2013-07-03 03:03:23 PM
Mother Earth is like RAAWR get the fark off me.
/it would be interesting if DNA replication enzymes evolved to thermophilic levels... doubt it... translation you're farked
 
2013-07-03 03:04:01 PM
Global Warming isn't a hard pill to swallow - its the way you turds sell it.
 
2013-07-03 03:04:08 PM

Corvus: DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]

Here is a third example showing you wrong:

Projection: In 1995, IPCC projected "little change in the extent of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets... over the next 50-100 years." In 2007 IPCC embraced a drastic revision: "New data... show[s] that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003."
 Reality: Today, ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica is trending at least 100 years ahead of projections compared to IPCC's first three reports.


The only thing you have proved is you know how to copy pasta

The models have been and are now wrong, and getting worse

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-03 03:04:24 PM

DesertDemonWY: Corvus: WelldeadLink: Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

If you accept the basic physics, not much will happen now.
[i.imgur.com image 553x349]

That's all nice and all but so far temperatures are hitting the IPCC models predicted (in fact on the high side) and we should ignore all that because 1 scientist (that is who runs the blog you linked to) thinks the other 99% scientists are wrong even thought they have been right so far?

If you're being serious, please provide a citation. Then I can stop laughing so hard

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x637]


Where's that data coming from?  None of the graphs on the NASA page http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/  don't look a damn thing like it.  Actually they look quite a bit like the models you plotted...
 
2013-07-03 03:05:29 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Anthony Watts was paid $90K in 2012 by the Heartland Institute (a member of ALEC, product of Koch Bros) to spread FUD about climate change.

The people who cite him in this (and every) thread as some expert are willfully lying or ignorant or perhaps both.


Exhibit A:

DesertDemonWY:
The only thing you have proved is you know how to copy pasta

The models have been and are now wrong, and getting worse

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 500x376]

 
2013-07-03 03:06:10 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Corvus: HotIgneous Intruder: All you need to know...

Twelve thousands yeas ago, there was a mile of ice above what is now Albany, NY.
Conditions have improved quite a bit since then.
Chesapeake Bay formed out of the glacial meltwater.
Bering land bridge flooded, keeping them Rooskies at bay.

/Interglacial warming, how werk it.

Yes climate changes no one is disputing that but what you are describing are climate changing that happened over HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of years NOT DECADES.

When it happens slowly the environment can respond and change, but not when it is fast.

No.
I'm saying it happened over 12,000 years. Not hundreds of thousands of years.
And so what?

Adapt or die.
Move away from the oceans.
Don't build your house in the desert or in forest subject to burning over.

Send your money to people in suits.
It's the only way!


Hmmmm. Just realized that last statement is the entire platform of the Republic Party.

Wonder why they don't stay on track. Oh, that's right. Science is for NEEEERRDS!
 
2013-07-03 03:07:23 PM
The arguement continues, but I like to think what's the case scenario.

Deny Global warming/climate change:
We do nothing and the world ends up like Venus 2.0. Or the best case we do nothing and nothing happens.

Accept that climate change is real:
Worst case scenario is nothing happens, but we clean up the environment, better air, water and land. Best case scenario is we clean up the environment and avoid Venus 2.0.

I don't think there is much of a choice.
 
2013-07-03 03:07:48 PM

boarch: You still live in the desert... Just because some are cold doesn't change the soundness of my advice.


I complained about the heat, you told me to move out of the desert. I showed you that "desert" has nothing to do with "heat", and you think your point still stands? WOW...
 
2013-07-03 03:08:05 PM
DesertDemonWY:

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 500x376]

Hey look it's this lie again, that doesn't site sources.  And it is a lie.  Stop lying, please.
Doesn't it make you feel any shame at all that you go to biased sources, don't check data, and put outright fabrications under your name?  Do you care?
 
2013-07-03 03:08:07 PM
Didn't Nixon create the EPA? He must have been a nerd and a Democr....wait.
 
2013-07-03 03:08:11 PM

SlowMind: genner: Confabulat: Kirzania: Confabulat: The data we DO have is pretty evident though. I'm still not sure why certain people (i.e., right-wing Republicans) refuse to accept what is common sense, really. If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen? It's like they refuse to accept basic physics or something because it is a liberal plot to destroy the economy, or something.

While I say we need to take way better care of this planet than we do, I just have to argue here. Data can be so misleading. Can you say, without a doubt in your mind, that perhaps some kind of climate change has NEVER happened in the past? No. We've had ice ages, world-altering meteor strikes, etc, etc. Can you verify with only a couple 100 years of data that THIS CHANGE HAPPENING NOW is a direct correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere? You can't because no one was around before and there was no data to prove or disprove it. Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?
[img.pandawhale.com image 600x450]

That's what climatologists DO. They figure out why things change.

I swear, global warming deniers say "natural variations!" and throw up their hands like that explains a damn thing. SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.

Scientists don't go "natural variations!" and quit their jobs, idiot. They figure out what's up. Do you think it never occurred to a climatologist that "natural variations!" occur? Of course they know that! It's what they do!

The problem is there's too much money on both sides of the debate and not enough scientists that are willing to piss off the people who are giving them grant money. It's no wonder there's so little trust in the scientific method.

As a scientist and card carrying member of the American Geophysical Union, I'm getting a kick out of your comments.

Do you know how to make your name, in a good way, as a politician? Get elected year after year?  Proudly proclaim a viewpoint that people with votes and/or money (preferably both) want to hear.  Shovel money to your constituency.  Determining facts and truth are more or less irrelevant.

Do you know how you make your name as a scientist?  Get a guaranteed job for life?  Overturning the orthodoxy.  There is no scientific debate on global warming, it is almost as thoroughly accepted amongst climate scientists as classical mechanics classical E&M (Maxwell's equations) were in the 19th century.  (I say "almost" because while I am aware of polls amongst climate scientists in which 99% accept anthropogenic global warming, and 1% did not respond.  I am unaware of any such polls on classical mechanics in the 19th century and I assume it was 100% accepted.)  Einstein and Bohr made their names by overthrowing the orthodoxy and explaining previously unexplained data with new theories.  So far, there is no unexplained data for climate scientists to use to overthrow global warming and create new theories.  Every measurement, every model refinement, every new understanding of important details like how clouds affect warming has strengthened the case for anthropogenic global warming.

Now excuse me while I get back to my plans for destroying the economy, so I can, er, um,... Ur, no, so my kids, can, um, aw geez, I haven't been thinking far enough ahead to figure that out yet.  Must be my continually breaking out in maniacal laughter.


Buy a mansion and a yacht?
 
2013-07-03 03:10:13 PM
2001 - 2010?  Obviously, I blame Bush.
However, he inherited a terrible climate from Clinton, so it's not really his fault.
 
2013-07-03 03:10:44 PM
I learned something new today. Science is based on consensus. Who knew?
 
2013-07-03 03:10:47 PM
So... how much longer 'til we crash into the Sun?
 
2013-07-03 03:12:37 PM
Who cares? If we Skeptics turn out to be wrong it's not like we don't have two or three spare Earths lying around to have a second run at things.
 
2013-07-03 03:13:41 PM

Realist29: I learned something new today. Science is based on consensus. Who knew?


Well, it's all we've got once you decided evidence, application of established theory, peer review, and careful study weren't good enough.
 
2013-07-03 03:14:24 PM

Mikey1969: boarch: You still live in the desert... Just because some are cold doesn't change the soundness of my advice.

I complained about the heat, you told me to move out of the desert. I showed you that "desert" has nothing to do with "heat", and you think your point still stands? WOW...


i.chzbgr.com

It's almost like you probably KNEW that he meant you're an idiot to live in what is commonly known as the hottest region of our nation (colloquially referred to as "the desert") and continue to biatch about the heat but just felt like being a dick about it.
 
Displayed 50 of 352 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report