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.

(Daily Express)   A government funded report shows 19% of people are climate change disbelievers   (express.co.uk) divider line 13
    More: Obvious, Intergovernmental Panel, denialism, Union of Concerned Scientists, IPCC, global warming, greenhouse gases, ice sheets, scientific research  
•       •       •

517 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 Sep 2013 at 8:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2013-09-20 11:23:21 AM  
2 votes:

Pocket_Fisherman: As one of the few people who post here with actual relevant degrees in the subject, I am not a climate change denier.  That very term though is meant to hide the argument.  Climate change happens and is happening.

What I think is overstated is mans effect on the climate.  Global warming doesn't work anymore so now its "climate change".


Ah, the lesser spotted they changed the name argument.

so tell us, what's your relevant degree in? From what institution? Who taught the courses?

2013-09-20 06:59:54 PM  
1 votes:

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: chimp_ninja: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: As you stated; First it was global warming, then they backed off that and started calling it 'climate change.'

No, "they" didn't.  See above.  The scientific community has been using "climate change" since at least the 1960s.

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: This planet had gone through many warming/cooling cycles billions of years before man arrived, and will continue to do so long after we're gone. The very idea that some people think humanity could have ANY effect on the planet itself, is pompous at best, and moronic at worst.

Why would an argument this stupid occur twice in the same thread?  Why would two of them?  Do you guys have a script?

OK.  You're teh smart, we're teh stupid.  Once again.  Anybody who doesn't fall in line with teh liberal fark-think must be teh ridiculed.  Yeah.  And the conservatives are the ones wearing the jack boots.


Apparently on their heads, and their cutting off the circulation.

If you don't want to be criticized for saying incredibly stupid things, you could always stop saying them.
2013-09-20 05:06:06 PM  
1 votes:

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: meat0918: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: Pocket_Fisherman: As one of the few people who post here with actual relevant degrees in the subject, I am not a climate change denier.  That very term though is meant to hide the argument.  Climate change happens and is happening.

What I think is overstated is mans effect on the climate.  Global warming doesn't work anymore so now its "climate change".

What's this?  A voice of reason on fark?  Say it ain't so.  Here's my take;   ANYBODY who thinks humanity can play a major role in what happens on earth is a RETAR .... Errr. Moron. Moron's still OK, right?  As you stated; First it was global warming, then they backed off that and started calling it 'climate change.' Well guess what? This planet had gone through many warming/cooling cycles billions of years before man arrived, and will continue to do so long after we're gone. The very idea that some people think humanity could have ANY effect on the planet itself, is pompous at best, and moronic at worst.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14#Formation_during_nuclear_test s

"The above-ground nuclear tests that occurred in several countries between 1955 and 1980 (see nuclear test list) dramatically increased the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and subsequently in the biosphere; after the tests ended, the atmospheric concentration of the isotope began to decrease.
One side-effect of the change in atmospheric carbon-14 is that this has enabled some options for determining the birth year of an individual, in particular, the amount of carbon-14 in tooth enamel,[19][20] or the carbon-14 concentration in the lens of the eye.[21]"

That would have an effect on HUMANITY, jackass.  Not on the planet.  The earth will continue to exist whether we're here or not.


So you're saying the increase in the amount of carbon 14 ONLY affected humanity?

Wow....  and I'm the egotistical one for wanting to live with a little less pollution floating around....
2013-09-20 01:17:56 PM  
1 votes:

steamingpile: Disbelievers is a strong word, more that they don't accept the reasons fed to them for over a decade and are tiring of them just "adjusting" data to meet their goals when their models fall short of their expected results.

There are other reasons for the earth warming up, core samples have proven it does this without any help from us so blaming it all on human intervention sounds egotistical.


It does not matter how something "sounds".  When you have data that provides an explanation that is better than current evidence-based theories, then you have something.  Until then, you're a barking peanut gallery.  Stop talking about how "egotistical" something sounds, and show where the data is incorrect, or changes the statistical discussion.
2013-09-20 01:14:51 PM  
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: State_College_Arsonist: if certain people and agencies stopped using the most extreme projections as predictions for the future.

Do you have evidence of this? Because there's evidence of the exact opposite.


Do you watch the news?  When the IPCC reports a 95% confidence range for future temperatures, it makes sense for the media to report the high end of the scale, as it is more of a doomsday projection that makes it more exciting, and therefore attracts more readers.  Now that the model from 1998 is already almost outside of this confidence range on the low end, its turning a lot of the viewers off.

/Yes, we are warming
Yes, we are causing some of it.
No, it is not as severe as projected in 1998.
Yes, we should find cleaner energy sources.
2013-09-20 01:01:16 PM  
1 votes:

chimp_ninja: "Climate change" (and its derivatives like "anthropogenic climate change") has been the standard term in the scientific literature for decades. Here's a 1979 paper in Science by Carl Sagan where he uses the term without explanation (implying it's common parlance). Here's a peer-reviewed paper from 1969 showing the term is in common use even then


I was speaking from a socio-political-media perspective, as opposed to a scientific perspective.  From the standpoint of science, of course you are correct.

Khellendros: Do you ever hear a meteorologist tell you the mean temperature of the planet? Of course not, because it's a farking useless number


You know what is not a useless number?  The amount the sea level is going to rise due to excess CO2 levels.
2013-09-20 12:33:15 PM  
1 votes:

State_College_Arsonist: The percentage of people who believe that anthropogenic warming exists would probably be higher if certain people and agencies stopped using the most extreme projections as predictions for the future.


"Certain people"?  You sound like a catty teenage girl deniably complaining about her friends on Facebook.  Who are these "certain people and agencies"?

/Top. Men.
2013-09-20 12:21:52 PM  
1 votes:

State_College_Arsonist: if certain people and agencies stopped using the most extreme projections as predictions for the future.


Do you have evidence of this? Because there's evidence of the exact opposite.
2013-09-20 11:52:25 AM  
1 votes:

legion_of_doo: Shouldn't be about "Belief" or "Disbelief". And yet some of you dogmatic global warming alarmists seem to want it to be about the one true belief.


2/10. Nice use of "dogmatic" and "alarmist" though.
2013-09-20 11:50:37 AM  
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: Pocket_Fisherman: Global warming doesn't work anymore so now its "climate change".

"Climate change" is a term invented by industrialists and foisted upon us by the media.  They took exception to the term "global warming".


"Climate change" (and its derivatives like "anthropogenic climate change") has been the standard term in the scientific literature for decades.  Here's a 1979 paper in Science by Carl Sagan where he uses the term without explanation (implying it's common parlance).  Here's a peer-reviewed paper from 1969 showing the term is in common use even then.

I can't remember seeing the term "global warming" in a professional, primary scientific paper.

Pocket_Fisherman: Global warming doesn't work anymore so now its "climate change".


For someone who claims to have a relevant degree, you'd think you'd be familiar with the professional literature.

Your opinion certainly isn't shared by many climatologists.  97% of active climatologists agree that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures".  Among abstracts expressing a position on anthropogenic climate change, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. When Cook et al. contacted the authors of scientific papers expressing a position on anthropogenic climate change, Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% of the authors endorsed the consensus position.

Given all of that, you'd think you'd express a more cogent argument than merely:

Pocket_Fisherman: What I think is overstated is mans effect on the climate.

2013-09-20 10:26:03 AM  
1 votes:

indarwinsshadow: The Gentleman Caller: And they won't until their home is underwater. then they'll blame the gays.

I blame Bush.


Lesbians are included in the gay category.
2013-09-20 10:00:25 AM  
1 votes:

GameSprocket: That is in the UK. I'm sure it is higher in the USA. Hell, we probably have 19% believing that 9/11 was a government plot.


Pew did an enormous poll of US adults regarding religious beliefs.

Statements like "Angels and demons are active in the world" get 40% "completely agree" and 28% "mostly agree".  19% of Christians claim to speak in tongues, and half of those claim it's at least weekly.  62% for "definite answer to a specific prayer request" at least several times per year.

This poll was done in 2007, not 1407.  It's sad what people believe.
2013-09-20 09:11:58 AM  
1 votes:
And they won't until their home is underwater. then they'll blame the gays.
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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