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.

(The Daily Caller)   Climate change denialist still in denial   (dailycaller.com) divider line 231
    More: Obvious, MIT, UN climate, climate change, surface layer, alarmisms, global warming skeptics, Secretary of State John Kerry, effects of global warming  
•       •       •

1620 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Sep 2013 at 9:12 AM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-30 02:15:13 PM
joeshill:

Ambitwistor:   Newsflash:  when respected scientists start saying stupid things, especially in public, they're no longer respected by their peers.  This is not unique to climate science.  It is true that climate science is in the public eye, which is perhaps why other scientists feel compelled to point out that they're saying stupid things, as opposed to just quietly ignoring them as is common in most fields.

Yep.  That's how it worked for Lysenko and his "peers".


I'm having trouble parsing your sarcasm.  Are you seriously arguing that climate science is somehow unique in scientists losing respect among their peers when they say stupid things?  Especially after describing how contentious scientists are about each other's theories?
 
2013-09-30 02:19:35 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Can anybody tell me a time when the climate was not changing?

I'll give you a million internets if you can.



That the climate changes for different reasons and at different times does not mean that some changes aren't caused by us, nor does it mean that said changes can't have serious, negative consequences.

One can use fire as an analogy - that fires have always existed does not mean that someone can't burn your house down, with negative consequences.
 
2013-09-30 02:23:00 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Can anybody tell me a time when the climate was not changing?

I'll give you a million internets if you can.


Under normal conditions, the climate changes very gradually. These aren't normal conditions. We've 5500 years of cooling undone in less than a century.There have been other times when the global climate changed that rapidly, but only after something like an asteroid/comet strike or massive amounts of vulcanism.
 
2013-09-30 02:30:19 PM

Ambitwistor: joeshill:

Ambitwistor:   Newsflash:  when respected scientists start saying stupid things, especially in public, they're no longer respected by their peers.  This is not unique to climate science.  It is true that climate science is in the public eye, which is perhaps why other scientists feel compelled to point out that they're saying stupid things, as opposed to just quietly ignoring them as is common in most fields.

Yep.  That's how it worked for Lysenko and his "peers".

I'm having trouble parsing your sarcasm.  Are you seriously arguing that climate science is somehow unique in scientists losing respect among their peers when they say stupid things?  Especially after describing how contentious scientists are about each other's theories?


Ambitwistor: joeshill:

Ambitwistor:   Newsflash:  when respected scientists start saying stupid things, especially in public, they're no longer respected by their peers.  This is not unique to climate science.  It is true that climate science is in the public eye, which is perhaps why other scientists feel compelled to point out that they're saying stupid things, as opposed to just quietly ignoring them as is common in most fields.

Yep.  That's how it worked for Lysenko and his "peers".

I'm having trouble parsing your sarcasm.  Are you seriously arguing that climate science is somehow unique in scientists losing respect among their peers when they say stupid things?  Especially after describing how contentious scientists are about each other's theories?


If you define disagreement with stupidity, then yes, climate science would be towards an extreme (maybe not unique, but not mainstream).  Judith Curry's sin was not saying "stupid" things.  She simply stopped accepting the party line as truth, and suggested the examination of evidence on its merits.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 02:32:01 PM

joeshill: There is a whole spectrum of skepticism.

1) People who do not believe in the Greenhouse effect. (I've never seen any of these, but we can include them for the sake of argument.)
2) People who do not believe the earth is warming. (This can range for any number of reasons, from data error, poor proxy selection, data adjustment, whatever)
3) People who do not believe the earth is warming outside of natural variability. (This relies on historical proxy data, which goes back to proxy selection)
4) People who do not believe the earth is warming due to the influence of man. (This relates to mans contribution of CO2 (29 GTons) to the atmosphere vs natural contribution (750GTons) to the atmosphere)
5) People who do not believe the earth is warming mainly due to the influence of man. (See above, but arguing that natural variability plays a large part in the warming, and that man is contributing only a small portion of the warming)
6) People who do not believe that the rate of warming is as high as some have predicted (what is the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling in atmospheric CO2? Estimates range from 0.5-6 Deg C. IPCC calls 1.5-4.5 likely. But they called 1.5-6 likely last time. At 1.5 Deg/doubling, and a doubling from 400ppm taking anywhere between 300-500 years, we're looking at a range of warming between .3C to 1.5C / century.)
6) People who do not believe that the impact of warming is altogether detrimental (Increased temperate zone vs possible sea level rise)
7) People who do not believe that the costs of warming outweigh the cost to prevent warming.
8) People who do not believe that the cost of mitigating effects outweigh the cost to prevent warming. (Can we spend less money in the future to cope with the problem, if the earth is warmer than we would spend now in preventing warming altogether).


Don't forget 9) People who want to make money NOW and could not give a rat's ass what happens to generations.  There are A LOT of those.
 
2013-09-30 02:35:47 PM

SlothB77: brantgoose: Once upon a time there was a rich and powerful young King and Queen

WTF am i reading?

Sleeping Booty

from  Mother Brantgoose's Fairy Tales for Climate Change Deniers

Other titles in this series:

Snow White, Soot Black: The Role of particulate matter in Arctic ice decline

The Three Little Denialists and the Big Bad Wolf at the Door, talking denial from strawmen to stonewalling

Little Red Commie Hoaxer

Chicken Little and the Falling Stratospheric Measurements

The Three Wise Men of Gotham and Sea Level Rise

The Calico Cat and the Gingham Dog: the Role of China and America in climate change action prevention

The Three Polar Bears Go Extinct Due to Sea Ice Decline


I've got a thousand of 'em.
 
2013-09-30 02:37:53 PM

joeshill: Ambitwistor: joeshill:

6) People who do not believe that the rate of warming is as high as some have predicted (what is the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling in atmospheric CO2?  Estimates range from 0.5-6 Deg C.  IPCC calls 1.5-4.5 likely.  But they called 1.5-6 likely last time.

They had 1.4-4.5 in the first three assessment reports, 2-4.5 in the last assessment report, and back to 1.5-4.5 in the latest report.  (However, they have only used language like "likely" with a specific meaning since the last report.)

You're right.  It was 2-4.5 in the last report.

While they do use the word "likely", they also make the footnote:
"No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on
values across assessed lines of evidence and studies. "



Just to add onto this, note that they can't give a singular number for a best estimate, but assessed probability distributions are not equal throughout that range. Check out figure 10.20 (caution, large pdf) if you've got time.
 
2013-09-30 02:38:55 PM

joeshill: All of these steps are some mix of science and politics.


Actually, only steps 6-8 include what I'd call "political" components, where there are questions about what OUGHT be done, rather than merely scientific questions what IS happening. (Not that ought-preconceptions can't bias people's judgement for is-question evaluation; but minimizing that tendency is a large part of science as a body of anthropological practices.)

Fart_Machine: It's like when the anti-vax crowd quotes Andrew Wakefield.


Unlike Wakefield, however, Lindzen has only been caught massively screwing up on his math, rather than willfully falsifying data.

lennavan: I love that using an example to illustrate how the scientific process works turned into a pedantic argument over what exact historical time period I was referring to. What goes through your head when you post? Was it something like "Haha! If he was talking about people believing in a flat earth during the middle ages, then I proved global warming correct!"


I suspect it's more indirect -- something like "Hey, here's something which might be used to indicate that in general his understanding is not as good as he thinks, which might induce enough cognitive dissonance to trigger his re-examining his current ideas about other things". Alas, changing someone's mind is seldom that simple.

The First Four Katy Perry Albums: Wow, there sure are a lot of scientists on fark.com!


While there's a heck of a lot more (amateur) "science communicator" types than working scientists, my impression is that Fark's commentariat includes disproportionate number of professional researches in various scientific fields, compared to (say) the relative level in the US population overall.
 
2013-09-30 02:41:15 PM

joeshill: Ambitwistor: joeshill:

Ambitwistor:   Newsflash:  when respected scientists start saying stupid things, especially in public, they're no longer respected by their peers.  This is not unique to climate science.  It is true that climate science is in the public eye, which is perhaps why other scientists feel compelled to point out that they're saying stupid things, as opposed to just quietly ignoring them as is common in most fields.

Yep.  That's how it worked for Lysenko and his "peers".

I'm having trouble parsing your sarcasm.  Are you seriously arguing that climate science is somehow unique in scientists losing respect among their peers when they say stupid things?  Especially after describing how contentious scientists are about each other's theories?

If you define disagreement with stupidity, then yes, climate science would be towards an extreme (maybe not unique, but not mainstream).  Judith Curry's sin was not saying "stupid" things.  She simply stopped accepting the party line as truth, and suggested the examination of evidence on its merits.



A bit of both. Curry said some things that were really unsupported by the evidence. One can of course suggest that one should examines the evidence on its merits, but what one finds when one actually does so also matters.
 
2013-09-30 02:49:50 PM

Damnhippyfreak: joeshill: Ambitwistor: joeshill:

Ambitwistor:   Newsflash:  when respected scientists start saying stupid things, especially in public, they're no longer respected by their peers.  This is not unique to climate science.  It is true that climate science is in the public eye, which is perhaps why other scientists feel compelled to point out that they're saying stupid things, as opposed to just quietly ignoring them as is common in most fields.

Yep.  That's how it worked for Lysenko and his "peers".

I'm having trouble parsing your sarcasm.  Are you seriously arguing that climate science is somehow unique in scientists losing respect among their peers when they say stupid things?  Especially after describing how contentious scientists are about each other's theories?

If you define disagreement with stupidity, then yes, climate science would be towards an extreme (maybe not unique, but not mainstream).  Judith Curry's sin was not saying "stupid" things.  She simply stopped accepting the party line as truth, and suggested the examination of evidence on its merits.


A bit of both. Curry said some things that were really unsupported by the evidence. One can of course suggest that one should examines the evidence on its merits, but what one finds when one actually does so also matters.


I think "said some things that were really unsupported by the evidence" can be said of just about every scientist at some time or another.  Across every discipline.  Einstein had his "God does not play dice."  I'm sure he still regrets that.  <g>
 
2013-09-30 02:55:17 PM

joeshill: Damnhippyfreak: joeshill: Ambitwistor: joeshill:

Ambitwistor:   Newsflash:  when respected scientists start saying stupid things, especially in public, they're no longer respected by their peers.  This is not unique to climate science.  It is true that climate science is in the public eye, which is perhaps why other scientists feel compelled to point out that they're saying stupid things, as opposed to just quietly ignoring them as is common in most fields.

Yep.  That's how it worked for Lysenko and his "peers".

I'm having trouble parsing your sarcasm.  Are you seriously arguing that climate science is somehow unique in scientists losing respect among their peers when they say stupid things?  Especially after describing how contentious scientists are about each other's theories?

If you define disagreement with stupidity, then yes, climate science would be towards an extreme (maybe not unique, but not mainstream).  Judith Curry's sin was not saying "stupid" things.  She simply stopped accepting the party line as truth, and suggested the examination of evidence on its merits.


A bit of both. Curry said some things that were really unsupported by the evidence. One can of course suggest that one should examines the evidence on its merits, but what one finds when one actually does so also matters.

I think "said some things that were really unsupported by the evidence" can be said of just about every scientist at some time or another.  Across every discipline.  Einstein had his "God does not play dice."  I'm sure he still regrets that.  <g>



Fair enough! How about 'said some things very publically and prominently that were really unsupported by the evidence'.
 
2013-09-30 03:00:39 PM

joeshill: If you define disagreement with stupidity, then yes, climate science would be towards an extreme (maybe not unique, but not mainstream).


And what, precisely, is "extreme" about the example you gave?

Judith Curry's sin was not saying "stupid" things.

It sounds like you haven't even read the criticisms of her that you're complaining about.

She simply stopped accepting the party line as truth, and suggested the examination of evidence on its merits.

That's a highly amusing interpretation of what she has actually said, and one that sounds pretty much like a "party line" itself.
 
2013-09-30 03:05:15 PM

joeshill: There is a whole spectrum of skepticism.

1) People who do not believe in the Greenhouse effect. (I've never seen any of these, but we can include them for the sake of argument.)


The amount of deliberate ignorance needed to deny the existance of the greenhouse effect pales in comparison to that needed to believe that the entire universe is less than 10,000 years old--and we have those folks serving on the House science committee.
 
2013-09-30 03:05:56 PM

Damnhippyfreak: joeshill: Damnhippyfreak: joeshill: Ambitwistor: joeshill:

Ambitwistor:   Newsflash:  when respected scientists start saying stupid things, especially in public, they're no longer respected by their peers.  This is not unique to climate science.  It is true that climate science is in the public eye, which is perhaps why other scientists feel compelled to point out that they're saying stupid things, as opposed to just quietly ignoring them as is common in most fields.

Yep.  That's how it worked for Lysenko and his "peers".

I'm having trouble parsing your sarcasm.  Are you seriously arguing that climate science is somehow unique in scientists losing respect among their peers when they say stupid things?  Especially after describing how contentious scientists are about each other's theories?

If you define disagreement with stupidity, then yes, climate science would be towards an extreme (maybe not unique, but not mainstream).  Judith Curry's sin was not saying "stupid" things.  She simply stopped accepting the party line as truth, and suggested the examination of evidence on its merits.


A bit of both. Curry said some things that were really unsupported by the evidence. One can of course suggest that one should examines the evidence on its merits, but what one finds when one actually does so also matters.

I think "said some things that were really unsupported by the evidence" can be said of just about every scientist at some time or another.  Across every discipline.  Einstein had his "God does not play dice."  I'm sure he still regrets that.  <g>


Fair enough! How about 'said some things very publically and prominently that were really unsupported by the evidence'.


Well, do we want to start comparing "unsupported by the evidence"  Like upside-down Tijander Varve proxies?

Scientists make errors.  If the only unforgivable errors are crossing the party line, then we've stopped talking about science, and we're talking politics.

As I said, after 20 years of watching this debate, I'm still unconvinced of either side.  It would help if the side claiming the moral/scientific high ground didn't resort to name calling so often.
 
2013-09-30 03:22:23 PM

Ambitwistor: joeshill:

Ambitwistor:   Newsflash:  when respected scientists start saying stupid things, especially in public, they're no longer respected by their peers.  This is not unique to climate science.  It is true that climate science is in the public eye, which is perhaps why other scientists feel compelled to point out that they're saying stupid things, as opposed to just quietly ignoring them as is common in most fields.

Yep.  That's how it worked for Lysenko and his "peers".

I'm having trouble parsing your sarcasm.  Are you seriously arguing that climate science is somehow unique in scientists losing respect among their peers when they say stupid things?  Especially after describing how contentious scientists are about each other's theories hypotheses?


FTFY
 
2013-09-30 03:39:04 PM

joeshill: As I said, after 20 years of watching this debate, I'm still unconvinced of either side.  It would help if the side claiming the moral/scientific high ground didn't resort to name calling so often.


Are you a climatologist?

Curious why you need to be convinced.  What is your position on the toxicity levels for lead in drinking water, do you question the way Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory handles infinities or perhaps whether or not near-Earth asteroid 433 Eros will collide with earth.

I just find it funny that this particular science gets to be questioned by the general public but that that they pretty much take the word of the scientific community on every other scientific subject.
 
2013-09-30 03:42:29 PM

mrshowrules: Curious why you need to be convinced


His name isn't "Joe's Hill", it's ________.
 
2013-09-30 03:46:44 PM

joeshill: Damnhippyfreak: joeshill: Damnhippyfreak: joeshill: Ambitwistor: joeshill:

Ambitwistor:   Newsflash:  when respected scientists start saying stupid things, especially in public, they're no longer respected by their peers.  This is not unique to climate science.  It is true that climate science is in the public eye, which is perhaps why other scientists feel compelled to point out that they're saying stupid things, as opposed to just quietly ignoring them as is common in most fields.

Yep.  That's how it worked for Lysenko and his "peers".

I'm having trouble parsing your sarcasm.  Are you seriously arguing that climate science is somehow unique in scientists losing respect among their peers when they say stupid things?  Especially after describing how contentious scientists are about each other's theories?

If you define disagreement with stupidity, then yes, climate science would be towards an extreme (maybe not unique, but not mainstream).  Judith Curry's sin was not saying "stupid" things.  She simply stopped accepting the party line as truth, and suggested the examination of evidence on its merits.


A bit of both. Curry said some things that were really unsupported by the evidence. One can of course suggest that one should examines the evidence on its merits, but what one finds when one actually does so also matters.

I think "said some things that were really unsupported by the evidence" can be said of just about every scientist at some time or another.  Across every discipline.  Einstein had his "God does not play dice."  I'm sure he still regrets that.  <g>


Fair enough! How about 'said some things very publically and prominently that were really unsupported by the evidence'.

Well, do we want to start comparing "unsupported by the evidence"  Like upside-down Tijander Varve proxies?


I'm unfamiliar with this issue, but you're more than welcome to discuss it if you wish.


joeshill: Scientists make errors.  If the only unforgivable errors are crossing the party line, then we've stopped talking about science, and we're talking politics.


There's errors, then there's errors made in interviews with the press - already somewhat outside of science, and well into the realm where politics dominates.


joeshill: As I said, after 20 years of watching this debate, I'm still unconvinced of either side.  It would help if the side claiming the moral/scientific high ground didn't resort to name calling so often.


This is fair. I suggest getting your information from realms where there isn't any name-calling - the scientific literature, or as close to it as you can get.
 
2013-09-30 03:47:41 PM

Triumph: Mikey1969: Um, wasn't last summer the "hottest ever" until this summer topped it?

Where the fark do you live? There were like 1600 record cold temperatures in the U.S. this summer. In the mid-Atlantic it got above 90 maybe 20 times.



[ohjeeznotthisshiatagain.jpg]

The US covers less than 2% of the earth's surface. As for the rest of the planet, this is what summer 2013 looked like:

www.ncdc.noaa.gov
 
2013-09-30 03:56:21 PM

mrshowrules: joeshill: As I said, after 20 years of watching this debate, I'm still unconvinced of either side.  It would help if the side claiming the moral/scientific high ground didn't resort to name calling so often.

Are you a climatologist?

Curious why you need to be convinced.  What is your position on the toxicity levels for lead in drinking water, do you question the way Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory handles infinities or perhaps whether or not near-Earth asteroid 433 Eros will collide with earth.

I just find it funny that this particular science gets to be questioned by the general public but that that they pretty much take the word of the scientific community on every other scientific subject.


Not a climatologist.  Just an interesting topic.

None of the other topics you've mention seem at all hotly contested.  Climate science is.  And the debate is personally interesting to me.

There are very few scientific topics that are hotly debated and also have the potential to affect peoples lives in a real way.  If the earth warms by 2 degrees in the next hundred years, that doesn't affect me much.  But if energy doubles or triples in price in order to meet specific carbon caps, that does affect me a lot.  Before I want to get onboard for such a large expense, I'd like to know that the people asking me to make the sacrifice can make a solid case for it.

Name calling, and elitism are not solid arguments.  A lot of what seems to pass for climate science seems to me to fail at basic statistics.
 
2013-09-30 04:02:39 PM

joeshill: mrshowrules: joeshill: As I said, after 20 years of watching this debate, I'm still unconvinced of either side.  It would help if the side claiming the moral/scientific high ground didn't resort to name calling so often.

Are you a climatologist?

Curious why you need to be convinced.  What is your position on the toxicity levels for lead in drinking water, do you question the way Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory handles infinities or perhaps whether or not near-Earth asteroid 433 Eros will collide with earth.

I just find it funny that this particular science gets to be questioned by the general public but that that they pretty much take the word of the scientific community on every other scientific subject.

Not a climatologist.  Just an interesting topic.

None of the other topics you've mention seem at all hotly contested.  Climate science is.  And the debate is personally interesting to me.

There are very few scientific topics that are hotly debated and also have the potential to affect peoples lives in a real way.  If the earth warms by 2 degrees in the next hundred years, that doesn't affect me much.  But if energy doubles or triples in price in order to meet specific carbon caps, that does affect me a lot.  Before I want to get onboard for such a large expense, I'd like to know that the people asking me to make the sacrifice can make a solid case for it.

Name calling, and elitism are not solid arguments.  A lot of what seems to pass for climate science seems to me to fail at basic statistics.



Note that bare assertions are not solid arguments either.
 
2013-09-30 04:04:35 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Ambitwistor: Yes, but it warms the surface less, because the heat is going into the depths, not hanging around near the surface.

Because as everyone knows, heat sinks.



Because as everyone knows, thermohaline circulation is a myth.

Explanation here (if you have the bucks, the original article is here).
 
2013-09-30 04:06:57 PM
Can't link to original article. Here's the URL:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n7/full/nclimate1229.html
 
2013-09-30 04:08:51 PM

DarnoKonrad: What "astounds" me (really it doesn't, you and I both know you're using your incredulity to delude yourself into sounding authoritative) is how many people simply dismiss the media as their whole argument without any other concern.  Just about the laziest thinking out there.



You linked to a page that says 2012 was one of the warmest years. I contested that it was the hottest. From your comments I assumed you were going to prove me wrong not support my argument.
 
2013-09-30 04:12:08 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: As for the rest of the planet, this is what summer 2013 looked like:


That is a nifty map.  Is it based on satellite or ground data?  I ask, because the oceans seem to be well covered, yet there are to pieces in the interior of South America and Africa respectively that lack data.  I can believe there being no weather stations in those places, but the Pacific and Siberia are well-covered.
 
2013-09-30 04:13:30 PM

joeshill: mrshowrules: joeshill: As I said, after 20 years of watching this debate, I'm still unconvinced of either side.  It would help if the side claiming the moral/scientific high ground didn't resort to name calling so often.

Are you a climatologist?

Curious why you need to be convinced.  What is your position on the toxicity levels for lead in drinking water, do you question the way Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory handles infinities or perhaps whether or not near-Earth asteroid 433 Eros will collide with earth.

I just find it funny that this particular science gets to be questioned by the general public but that that they pretty much take the word of the scientific community on every other scientific subject.

Not a climatologist.  Just an interesting topic.

None of the other topics you've mention seem at all hotly contested.  Climate science is.  And the debate is personally interesting to me.

There are very few scientific topics that are hotly debated and also have the potential to affect peoples lives in a real way.  If the earth warms by 2 degrees in the next hundred years, that doesn't affect me much.  But if energy doubles or triples in price in order to meet specific carbon caps, that does affect me a lot.  Before I want to get onboard for such a large expense, I'd like to know that the people asking me to make the sacrifice can make a solid case for it.

Name calling, and elitism are not solid arguments.  A lot of what seems to pass for climate science seems to me to fail at basic statistics.


In other words, lay people can have an opinion on the science because the subject is politicized.  If Gore made a movie about genetically engineered foods, we would have alot of GED biologists/geneticists filling the blogs today.

I suggest the science should not be politicized.  ACC is real.  Period.  Full stop.  What can and should be done about it (cost of energy) is when the politics should kick in and where the debate should begin.

Conservatives calling ACC a hoax for over a decade has delayed the real and important debate about what if anything could/should be done about it.  A much more complex question than the reality of ACC itself.
 
2013-09-30 04:17:11 PM
AndEhBus: You realize the last climate fad was global cooling. This was being pushed just as hard as global warming and believe it or not the church of global cooling is still be practiced by some.

Ctrl-Alt-Del: No, it wasn't. 6 articles written more than thirty years ago is hardly a "fad."


give me doughnuts: No, it wasn't. It was one or two papers (kind of like the one this article is about), and Time magazine decided to put it on the cover.



Nice to see you both have the same template to following. Need to work on your phony statistics though.
 
2013-09-30 04:18:42 PM

give me doughnuts: Jesus invented gravity after he had Lazarus shot down with a Patriot missile.

Ad they're still looking for a way to make a profit from it like God intended, but the freeloader entitlement-sucking LIEberals want it to be FREE not to float off into space.


Actually, I think there is a poor country somewhere in the Himalayan mountains that is exploiting gravity for profit.  They have little in the way of natural resources, but plenty of topography, so they built more hydro power capacity than their nation needs and are selling the surplus.
 
2013-09-30 04:27:58 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Can anybody tell me a time when the climate was not changing?

I'll give you a million internets if you can.


According to several of you in these threads, it hasn't changed since 1998.

/deliver my internets when you can
 
2013-09-30 04:33:41 PM

mrshowrules: joeshill: mrshowrules: joeshill: As I said, after 20 years of watching this debate, I'm still unconvinced of either side.  It would help if the side claiming the moral/scientific high ground didn't resort to name calling so often.

Are you a climatologist?

Curious why you need to be convinced.  What is your position on the toxicity levels for lead in drinking water, do you question the way Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory handles infinities or perhaps whether or not near-Earth asteroid 433 Eros will collide with earth.

I just find it funny that this particular science gets to be questioned by the general public but that that they pretty much take the word of the scientific community on every other scientific subject.

Not a climatologist.  Just an interesting topic.

None of the other topics you've mention seem at all hotly contested.  Climate science is.  And the debate is personally interesting to me.

There are very few scientific topics that are hotly debated and also have the potential to affect peoples lives in a real way.  If the earth warms by 2 degrees in the next hundred years, that doesn't affect me much.  But if energy doubles or triples in price in order to meet specific carbon caps, that does affect me a lot.  Before I want to get onboard for such a large expense, I'd like to know that the people asking me to make the sacrifice can make a solid case for it.

Name calling, and elitism are not solid arguments.  A lot of what seems to pass for climate science seems to me to fail at basic statistics.

In other words, lay people can have an opinion on the science because the subject is politicized.  If Gore made a movie about genetically engineered foods, we would have alot of GED biologists/geneticists filling the blogs today.

I suggest the science should not be politicized.  ACC is real.  Period.  Full stop.  What can and should be done about it (cost of energy) is when the politics should kick in and where the debate should begin.

Conservatives calling AC ...


I'd ask you to define "lay people".   I've seen the argument made that statisticians like Steve McIntyre have no place in the Global Warming debate because he is not a "climatologist".

As far as GM foods goes, I think that we all have a stake in that too.  Every farmer who has to worry about being sued by Monsanto because his crops got cross contaminated and now Monsanto wants him to pay royalties.  Every organic farmer who is trying to keep from inadvertently getting cross-contaminated.   The overwhelming fact that more and more we are growing less variety in favor of standardized varieties, which leave us more open when a new threat to that particular species occurs.

I would welcome scientists not politicizing their science.  But people like James Hansen and Michael Mann have crossed that line long ago.   It's a genie that won't go back into the bottle.
 
2013-09-30 04:33:55 PM
Here are my thoughts on global warming:

As I understand it, the earth is either going into an ice-age or coming out of an ice-age. So common-sense tells me the earth either get's colder or warmer at any given time it doesn't stay the same.

Unfortunately, I cannot determine myself whether the earth is getting warmer or colder. Unfortunately, Liberals have taken the potential for man-made climate disruptions and turned them into a political tool to advance their agenda and grow the government. What's worse, the media has followed lock-step. Together they are working tirelessly to advance their global warming agenda. Not to save the world but to grow government and increase government regulation in our lives. There have been numerous examples of the manipulation of data. This is done via manipulation,  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/11/new-study-thoro u ghly-debunks-global-warming-will-media-notice or omitting temperature readings altogether.  http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/noaa-temperature-fraud- e xpands-part-1/

The article referenced by the subby is another example. Unfortunately, there is a lot of dishonesty at play. It would be beneficial if everyone called out the dishonesty and ridiculed those practicing it. Instead they are defended and the people who call them out are called fringe even though they may be correct. All of this politicizing of the issue ensures that if Global warming is real people will always oppose it from a political standpoint. If global warming is not real, we will be wasting trillions of dollars and potentially many lives.

Finally, if global warming is real, and Liberals are really in this to save the world. Let's find a solution that doesn't benefit them politically speaking. It seems the end result they want is more taxes. If this real and they aren't just using this for their agenda they should approach it with politically neutral solutions. Start with strict carbon caps not taxes just limits. No profiteering from it. Something tells me we wouldn't be hearing about global warming if that was the case.
 
2013-09-30 04:36:20 PM

joeshill: mrshowrules: joeshill: As I said, after 20 years of watching this debate, I'm still unconvinced of either side.  It would help if the side claiming the moral/scientific high ground didn't resort to name calling so often.

Are you a climatologist?

Curious why you need to be convinced.  What is your position on the toxicity levels for lead in drinking water, do you question the way Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory handles infinities or perhaps whether or not near-Earth asteroid 433 Eros will collide with earth.

I just find it funny that this particular science gets to be questioned by the general public but that that they pretty much take the word of the scientific community on every other scientific subject.

Not a climatologist.  Just an interesting topic.

None of the other topics you've mention seem at all hotly contested.  Climate science is.  And the debate is personally interesting to me.


From the journal Science:

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."


Name calling, and elitism are not solid arguments.  A lot of what seems to pass for climate science seems to me to fail at basic statistics.


So you've read a lot of those scientific papers, have you? Which ones in particular did you find lacking in basic statistics?
 
2013-09-30 04:38:35 PM
Just one piece of data NOAA got caught altering:
img.fark.net

NOAA Fraud:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/noaa-temperature-fraud -e xpands-part-1/
 
2013-09-30 04:56:03 PM

Triumph: texanb4: Garet Garrett: We have an entire industry that is 100% dependent on responsible for climate change

True that.

[www.geologinternational.com image 697x401]

See Conoco Philips on your list there? They completely bankrolled CNN's global warming scaremonger series "Planet in Peril" in 2007. Al Gore just got a $100 million from Qatar - oil money straight in his pocket. Usually it's not as direct as that, but the money behind AGW research often comes from big oil. It's called profit protection. Strip away the controls by the cartels and the various propaganda efforts and a gallon of gas would never have cost more than a buck.


You're including Gore and his partners selling his cable network to Al Jazeera as part of the great Global Warming Conspiracy? I should have invested in aluminum foil.
 
2013-09-30 05:00:35 PM

AndEhBus: AndEhBus: You realize the last climate fad was global cooling. This was being pushed just as hard as global warming and believe it or not the church of global cooling is still be practiced by some.

Ctrl-Alt-Del: No, it wasn't. 6 articles written more than thirty years ago is hardly a "fad."

give me doughnuts: No, it wasn't. It was one or two papers (kind of like the one this article is about), and Time magazine decided to put it on the cover.


Nice to see you both have the same template to following. Need to work on your phony statistics though.


Yes, most people understand you're using old BS talking points that are a few years old. Time to step up your game!
 
2013-09-30 05:09:57 PM

flondrix: common sense is an oxymoron: As for the rest of the planet, this is what summer 2013 looked like:

That is a nifty map.  Is it based on satellite or ground data?  I ask, because the oceans seem to be well covered, yet there are to pieces in the interior of South America and Africa respectively that lack data.  I can believe there being no weather stations in those places, but the Pacific and Siberia are well-covered.



MLOST combines ground data from weather stations on land with satellite + buoy/ship reports for the oceans.
 
2013-09-30 06:13:19 PM

AndEhBus: Here are my thoughts on global warming:


I'm stoked.

AndEhBus: As I understand it, the earth is either going into an ice-age or coming out of an ice-age. So common-sense tells me the earth either get's colder or warmer at any given time it doesn't stay the same.



This is true.  It was significantly warmer a few weeks ago for instance.  Today is a nice 70F.  But I bet there will be SNOW on the ground in mere months.  Global warming my ass, amirite?

AndEhBus: Together they are working tirelessly to advance their global warming agenda. Not to save the world but to grow government and increase government regulation in our lives.



Yeah, that makes sense.  Liberals don't care about anything other than just generally growing government for no purpose at all.  That's not a loony opinion at all.

AndEhBus: There have been numerous examples of the manipulation of data. Here are two blogs proving it.



I get my scientific information from blogs too.

AndEhBus: Unfortunately, there is a lot of dishonesty at play.



Thank you, good sir, for being the only honest one willing to post blogs and remind us the liberals just want to grow government for no reason whatsoever.  If only everyone was as honest as you.

AndEhBus: It would be beneficial if everyone called out the dishonesty and ridiculed those practicing it.



I would never ridicule people.

AndEhBus: Instead they are defended and the people who call them out are called fringe even though they may be correct


That never made sense to me.  Why is it, just because we know liberals are out to get us and want to grow government and tax us for no purpose whatsoever, we are considered fringe lunatics?  We're HEROES man, HEROES.

AndEhBus: If global warming is not real, we will be wasting trillions of dollars and potentially many lives.



Why don't liberals understand this?  If it turns out global warming is not real, people are going to DIE.  WAKE UP LIBS.  And it will waste trillions of dollars!  TRILLIONS.  Think about it.  We'll build what, lots of solar power plants or some shiat to get off of fossil fuels?  Mandate electric cars?  If global warming is false, those solar power plants are USELESS and those cars WONT WORK.  WAKE UP LIBS.

AndEhBus: It seems the end result they want is more taxes.



Definitely.  Most people don't notice this.  Global Warming is just a way for liberals to increase taxes.  Shiat, I once had a conversation with a liberal and the moment I even slightly admitted global warming might possibly be real dude stole my wallet.  What's up with that?  Can you imagine what they will do if we agree it's real?

AndEhBus: Finally, if global warming is real ... Start with strict carbon caps not taxes just limits. No profiteering from it. Something tells me we wouldn't be hearing about global warming if that was the case.

Exactly.  Liberals and their Prius filled fantasy worlds are in it for taxes, government and profits.  You don't see a single person making any money off of global warming remaining in question.  Cripes, libs act as if those are the most profitable companies in the world.

I like your honesty AndEhBus, you're the only decent guy here.
 
2013-09-30 06:20:54 PM

AndEhBus: Here are my thoughts on global warming:

As I understand it, the earth is either going into an ice-age or coming out of an ice-age. So common-sense tells me the earth either get's colder or warmer at any given time it doesn't stay the same.

Unfortunately, I cannot determine myself whether the earth is getting warmer or colder. Unfortunately, Liberals


[stoppedreadingthere.jpg]
 
2013-09-30 06:32:49 PM

AndEhBus: AndEhBus: You realize the last climate fad was global cooling. This was being pushed just as hard as global warming and believe it or not the church of global cooling is still be practiced by some.

Ctrl-Alt-Del: No, it wasn't. 6 articles written more than thirty years ago is hardly a "fad."

give me doughnuts: No, it wasn't. It was one or two papers (kind of like the one this article is about), and Time magazine decided to put it on the cover.

Nice to see you both have the same template to following. Need to work on your phony statistics though.


Statistics?  I presented a simple fact - there were seven scientific papers published in peer reviewed journals during the 15 year period from 1965-1980 that discussed "global cooling", as opposed to several dozen which discussed global warming. This simple fact contradicts your silly talking point that "the last climate fad was global cooling" (Though I will admit that I mistakenly said 6, not 7)

Do you have any evidence that supports your position? Or that contradicts the facts I listed? I'd be happy to see your evidence. Or your admission that you were wrong. Or are you just going to change the subject to a different talking point? Because that what liars and denialists do. You're not one of those, are you? I mean, I would hate to find out that you are no different from all the Creationsists, AGW deniers and anti-vaxxers.
 
2013-09-30 06:52:25 PM

AndEhBus: Here are my thoughts on global warming:

As I understand it, the earth is either going into an ice-age or coming out of an ice-age. So common-sense tells me the earth either get's colder or warmer at any given time it doesn't stay the same.



The heat-absorbing properties of carbon dioxide are far better understood than the paleoclimatological record. And does your common sense tell you that natural climate change can make a 40% increase in a known greenhouse gas in just a couple of centuries irrelevant? If so, my handle has a few words for you.


Unfortunately, I cannot determine myself whether the earth is getting warmer or colder.


Fortunately, other people have thermometers, all over the world.
.

Unfortunately, Liberals have taken the potential for man-made climate disruptions and turned them into a political tool to advance their agenda and grow the government. What's worse, the media has followed lock-step. Together they are working tirelessly to advance their global warming agenda. Not to save the world but to grow government and increase government regulation in our lives. There have been numerous examples of the manipulation of data. This is done via manipulation,  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/11/new-study-thoro u ghly-debunks-global-warming-will-media-notice or omitting temperature readings altogether.  http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/noaa-temperature-fraud- e xpands-part-1/


A Newsbusters article which misinterprets the original article and posts a fake graph.

Their graph (y-axis labeling? what's that?):
newsbusters.org

Real graph:
upload.wikimedia.org

And a blog with pages like "1970s Global Cooling Scare" and "The Holocaust Began With Gun Control--After A Shooting," whose writer unsurprisingly seems to think that the US = the world.


The article referenced by the subby is another example. Unfortunately, there is a lot of dishonesty at play. It would be beneficial if everyone called out the dishonesty and ridiculed those practicing it. Instead they are defended and the people who call them out are called fringe even though they may be correct. All of this politicizing of the issue ensures that if Global warming is real people will always oppose it from a political standpoint. If global warming is not real, we will be wasting trillions of dollars and potentially many lives.


Why will there always be political opposition, and who is doing the politicizing? As I posted in an earlier thread, what if An Inconvenient Truth had been written by someone other than a Democratic politician?

Trillions of dollars and "potentially" many lives? And "if" it is real, the political delays will increase the costs by more zeros (and more lives) than even your big-L-liberal-fueled nightmares could come up with.


Finally, if global warming is real, and Liberals are really in this to save the world. Let's find a solution that doesn't benefit them politically speaking.


And you accuse the "Liberals" of politicizing this...


It seems the end result they want is more taxes. If this real and they aren't just using this for their agenda they should approach it with politically neutral solutions. Start with strict carbon caps not taxes just limits. No profiteering from it. Something tells me we wouldn't be hearing about global warming if that was the case.


A carbon cap is meaningless without enforceability. Given the fossil-fuel industries' attempts to eliminate, or at least defund, existing environmental regulations, does anyone think they would voluntarily accept any penalties for exceeding a carbon cap? It's more likely that their lobbyists would push for making the recording of air-quality data from power plants a felony).
 
2013-09-30 06:57:35 PM

AndEhBus: Unfortunately, there is a lot of dishonesty at play.


That is truly the most accurate thing you said. Too bad you've misunderstood who's being dishonest.
 
2013-09-30 06:57:36 PM

lennavan: I'm stoked.


Have you reached your snark quota for the day? Or should we all join in so he'll feel compelled to hand you more ammunition?
 
2013-09-30 07:11:09 PM
This guy technically has a point, but in such a way that it misses the point.

Is human industrial emissions the  main contributor to climate change?  Eh, maybe.

Is it the only significant factor that humans have actual control over, with enough impact that we could make intentional changes for a mitigating effect?  Pretty much 100% on that one.
 
2013-09-30 07:36:18 PM

Pick: I KNOW it is caused by the sun. The sun generates all the heat for this planet. I see all these so called college students don't know this. Do they not teach astrophysics and astronomy in college these days?

Another group of misinformed, low information liberals, drinking the kool aide. Sad, very sad.



Without the sun, there's no global warming because we'd all be frozen.  Also, oxygen did 9/11.  Without it, there wouldn't have been any combustion.  The ignition of gunpowder is what has caused every gun death.  There's never any need to investigate things like this any further, because we already have all the answers.
 
2013-09-30 07:57:31 PM

Damnhippyfreak: HotIgneous Intruder: Can anybody tell me a time when the climate was not changing?

I'll give you a million internets if you can.


That the climate changes for different reasons and at different times does not mean that some changes aren't caused by us, nor does it mean that said changes can't have serious, negative consequences.

One can use fire as an analogy - that fires have always existed does not mean that someone can't burn your house down, with negative consequences.


I cannot believe you actually believe I take anything you say seriously.
Seriously.
Give up.
Go get laid.
Have a beer.
 
2013-09-30 08:37:48 PM
FTFA:
"Once again, the science grows clearer, the case grows more compelling and the costs of inaction grow beyond anything that anyone with conscience or common sense should be willing to even contemplate."

Imagine how much more compelling the case would be if the climate was, you know, actually changing.
 
2013-09-30 08:39:23 PM

Uncle Tractor: Should I believe the people who have dedicated their lives to studying the climate, or should I believe the people who are making huge fortunes on fossil fuel ...?


How about believing the, you know, actual scientific data?
 
2013-09-30 08:43:30 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: img.fark.net


Because that continuation of warming is juuuuuuuuuuuuust around the corner, amirite?

And as we all know, climate catastrophe delayed is climate catastrophe intensified.
 
2013-09-30 08:44:14 PM

Rev. Skarekroe: Look, if you can't be 100% sure about something, then you shouldn't do anything.  That's always the best policy.


This is why we need to get Pelosi and Gore, and smash their heads together.
 
2013-09-30 08:47:17 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: The US covers less than 2% of the earth's surface. As for the rest of the planet, this is what summer 2013 looked like:


...when compared to a cherrypicked cold reference datum.

It's only cherrypicking when THEY do it.
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report