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.

(Live Science)   Global warming deniers argue that the 44,000-year Arctic temperature high can't be verified because dinosaur-riding Jesus didn't have a thermometer   (livescience.com) divider line 75
    More: Obvious, temperatures, Arctic, climate change denial, thermometers, dinosaurs, Canadian Arctic, ice caps, ice cores  
•       •       •

2163 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 Oct 2013 at 1:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-27 01:16:09 PM  
Were you there subby?
 
2013-10-27 01:23:28 PM  
How can they even get a temperature from a "time" from before the EARTH EVEN EXISTED.

/jk
 
2013-10-27 01:24:29 PM  
FTA "Plenty of studies have shown that the Arctic is warming and that the ice caps are melting "

Failure right out of the gate.
 
2013-10-27 01:33:29 PM  
J. Frank Parnell:

Failure right out of the gate.

Kind of like your existence, eh?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/neverending-daily-mail-nonsense.html
 
2013-10-27 01:34:09 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: FTA "Plenty of studies have shown that the Arctic is warming and that the ice caps are melting "

Failure right out of the gate.


Science from the Daily Mail? I'm sure it's objective.
 
2013-10-27 01:34:53 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: FTA "Plenty of studies have shown that the Arctic is warming and that the ice caps are melting "

Failure right out of the gate.


That's because last year's ice sheet coverage was record-shatteringly low. One year does not a trend make. Links to Daily Mail gives the intertubes clogged arteries.
 
2013-10-27 01:38:58 PM  
Well the fact is temperatures from times past when human did not have the ability to record temperatures (even more so before there were humans at all) can't be verified. Don't confuse extrapolation or hypothesizing with verification. If you don't have actual data, you don't have confirmation of anything. If all you're doing is taking current temperature data, and comparing it to ice cores, rock samples, etc all you're really doing is extrapolating what you think the temperatures likely were based on current understanding of what temperature are.

It's just like when the media publishes stories about "earth like planet discovered X distance away!" When all that was really found was some radio-telescope showing that they thing there's an object orbiting at a certain distance from a star and based on their understanding of orbital distances, it's probably solid, may have water, etc.  They take one fact: the emission from the star being interrupted at regular intervals (indicating an orbiting body might be doing it) and add a hefty dose of sensationalism, and shiat out an "earth like planet discovered" story.

Well the same thing applies here. No matter what we currently know about temperatures now, unless we actually recorded temperatures 40,000 years ago, we don't actually know what they were. We can make guesses. Damn good guesses even. But don't ever forget that they are still just guesses.
 
2013-10-27 01:45:24 PM  
www.skepticalscience.com
 
2013-10-27 01:56:04 PM  

Leader O'Cola: J. Frank Parnell:

Failure right out of the gate.

Kind of like your existence, eh?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/neverending-daily-mail-nonsense.html




To be fair, he has had a lobotomy.
 
2013-10-27 01:57:30 PM  
When will you fools realize it's not the return of the Ice Age from the 70's or Global Warming from the 80's that need concern us. It's the statistically consistent temp since 1998 that is the problem. We are all going to die from "GLOBAL STATUS QUO"

YOU"VE BEEN WARNED
 
2013-10-27 02:10:15 PM  

durokiy: When will you fools realize it's not the return of the Ice Age from the 70's or Global Warming from the 80's that need concern us. It's the statistically consistent temp since 1998 that is the problem. We are all going to die from "GLOBAL STATUS QUO"


Yes, when you cherry-pick a very strong El Niño year as your starting point, it does make things look like they were constant.  Had you started that trend at, say, 1999 or 2000, you would have reached a very different conclusion about whether or not temperatures were "statistically constant".

The 12 years in this century are all in the top 14 warmest years ever (along with 1997 and 1998).
 
2013-10-27 02:22:17 PM  

taurusowner: No matter what we currently know about temperatures now, unless we actually recorded temperatures 40,000 years ago, we don't actually know what they were. We can make guesses. Damn good guesses even. But don't ever forget that they are still just guesses.


Somebody can't understand "scientific proxy".

As a non climate proxy I vaguely recall a study about some disease that was prevalent among Blacks in the US and the question asked was whether it had a genetic component. They used "skin darkness" as a proxy for percent of African genes. For individuals this is a bogus metric though for large populations this proxy correlates well.
 
2013-10-27 02:23:05 PM  
I had to put on a sweater this afternoon.

Global warming my ass....
 
2013-10-27 02:35:25 PM  
Personally, I really couldn't care less about Global Warming.  I've never owned a car or had any kids, so I guess I have a small enough carbon footprint so that the Global warming kooks will leave me alone.  I also don't preach about Global Warming so I don't have to go red in the face to the anti-science religious nuts trying to explain to them why its not an Obama conspiracy or something.

Why don't the Global Warming supporters just do their best to reverse Global Warming, and the non supporters just live their normal life.  Has anyone ever been "converted" to the other side?  Or is it just a fun activity to yell at the computer screen.  I have to admit it is fun to watch people get so angry.
 
2013-10-27 02:46:39 PM  

JacobDavidWatson: Why don't the Global Warming supporters just do their best to reverse Global Warming, and the non supporters just live their normal life.


Because taxes.
 
2013-10-27 02:52:32 PM  

gameshowhost: That's because last year's ice sheet coverage was record-shatteringly low. One year does not a trend make. Links to Daily Mail gives the intertubes clogged arteries.


Anyone who ignores things based on source is just too lazy to think for themselves. It's either believe everything a source says or believe nothing. Never any objective reasoning.

For example, if a source starts saying there is widespread agreement among scientists that AGW is real you already know they're bullshiattting you on that. Even at the IPCC there was debate, with them openly discussing the 15 year pause in global warming. So again, any source that says there was no halt is bullshiattting you. Are these really the people you should trust to inform you on this?
 
2013-10-27 03:00:15 PM  

JacobDavidWatson: Personally, I really couldn't care less about Global Warming.  I've never owned a car or had any kids, so I guess I have a small enough carbon footprint so that the Global warming kooks will leave me alone.  I also don't preach about Global Warming so I don't have to go red in the face to the anti-science religious nuts trying to explain to them why its not an Obama conspiracy or something.

Why don't the Global Warming supporters just do their best to reverse Global Warming, and the non supporters just live their normal life.  Has anyone ever been "converted" to the other side?  Or is it just a fun activity to yell at the computer screen.  I have to admit it is fun to watch people get so angry.


Because global warming is a systemic problem that requires systemic solutions, and requires that the negative externalities currently distorting the market be recaptured so we can have a more free market. If you deny that carbon dioxide is largely transparent to visible light but has infrared absorption bands somewhere near the 15 micrometer range, you'll deny that the externality exists, and you will fight to stop what you consider an unjust tax or regulation from affecting you.

There is just no way around it. If physics works, carbon dioxide emissions harm everyone to the benefit of the polluter and we effectively need to either tax carbon dioxide emissions somehow or distort the market in another way (through subsidies) in an attempt to render mass carbon dioxide emissions unprofitable. If it doesn't, then all of this taxation and subsidization is just hurting the good patriotic coal-burning 'Mericans.

And yes, people have, eventually, been convinced of the reality of anthropogenic climate change through long-term exposure to data. Richard Mueller's "conversion" is a particularly spectacular example, albeit it came from actually doing research rather than being told about it.
 
2013-10-27 03:02:25 PM  

SVenus: JacobDavidWatson: Why don't the Global Warming supporters just do their best to reverse Global Warming, and the non supporters just live their normal life.

Because taxes.


That is the Global Warming supporters "doing their best".  I guess it just seems to me that people are pretty stuck in their opinion, and it is not that useful outside of some emotional gratification that is gained through participation in these forums.
 
2013-10-27 03:10:10 PM  

whatshisname: Were you there subby?


Jesus was, he did have a thermometer and he personally told me it was a nice sunny day. Why do you not believe Jesus?
 
2013-10-27 03:11:37 PM  

captainktainer: JacobDavidWatson: Personally, I really couldn't care less about Global Warming.  I've never owned a car or had any kids, so I guess I have a small enough carbon footprint so that the Global warming kooks will leave me alone.  I also don't preach about Global Warming so I don't have to go red in the face to the anti-science religious nuts trying to explain to them why its not an Obama conspiracy or something.

Why don't the Global Warming supporters just do their best to reverse Global Warming, and the non supporters just live their normal life.  Has anyone ever been "converted" to the other side?  Or is it just a fun activity to yell at the computer screen.  I have to admit it is fun to watch people get so angry.

Because global warming is a systemic problem that requires systemic solutions, and requires that the negative externalities currently distorting the market be recaptured so we can have a more free market. If you deny that carbon dioxide is largely transparent to visible light but has infrared absorption bands somewhere near the 15 micrometer range, you'll deny that the externality exists, and you will fight to stop what you consider an unjust tax or regulation from affecting you.

There is just no way around it. If physics works, carbon dioxide emissions harm everyone to the benefit of the polluter and we effectively need to either tax carbon dioxide emissions somehow or distort the market in another way (through subsidies) in an attempt to render mass carbon dioxide emissions unprofitable. If it doesn't, then all of this taxation and subsidization is just hurting the good patriotic coal-burning 'Mericans.

And yes, people have, eventually, been convinced of the reality of anthropogenic climate change through long-term exposure to data. Richard Mueller's "conversion" is a particularly spectacular example, albeit it came from actually doing research rather than being told about it.


Thanks for your answer.  I see what you mean, it is a nice idea. People won't like how they will have to pay more for things though. We will probably have to wait until Global Warming gets really bad.
 
2013-10-27 03:19:14 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: FTA "Plenty of studies have shown that the Arctic is warming and that the ice caps are melting "

Failure right out of the gate.


I have you flagged as "The Jet Stream is being Manipulated." Discuss.
 
2013-10-27 03:21:01 PM  

SVenus: JacobDavidWatson: Why don't the Global Warming supporters just do their best to reverse Global Warming, and the non supporters just live their normal life.

Because taxes.


Got you flagged as Petroleum Geologist Houston. Sort of figured that might be useful to know when seeing your subsequent posting on topics such as these.

Drillin for Shillin.
 
2013-10-27 03:23:39 PM  

JacobDavidWatson: Personally, I really couldn't care less about Global Warming.  I've never owned a car or had any kids, so I guess I have a small enough carbon footprint so that the Global warming kooks will leave me alone.  I also don't preach about Global Warming so I don't have to go red in the face to the anti-science religious nuts trying to explain to them why its not an Obama conspiracy or something.

Why don't the Global Warming supporters just do their best to reverse Global Warming, and the non supporters just live their normal life.  Has anyone ever been "converted" to the other side?  Or is it just a fun activity to yell at the computer screen.  I have to admit it is fun to watch people get so angry.


I guess we'll just have to learn from your sterling example of superior living.
 
2013-10-27 03:32:06 PM  

Joe USer: whatshisname: Were you there subby?

Jesus was, he did have a thermometer and he personally told me it was a nice sunny day. Why do you not believe Jesus?


Pics or it didn't happen.
 
2013-10-27 03:48:09 PM  

gameshowhost: [www.skepticalscience.com image 500x340]


Wall of senseless graphs and charts, now with GIF Power!
 
2013-10-27 03:48:57 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: FTA "Plenty of studies have shown that the Arctic is warming and that the ice caps are melting "

Failure right out of the gate.


Ah, so you're a multi issue science kook or troll.  Good to see that you're branching out from flouride conspiracy theories.
 
2013-10-27 03:49:09 PM  
/We're all going to be serfs in another 75 years. Get used to it. Just send all your earnings to Wall Street and trust them.
 
2013-10-27 03:55:59 PM  
Jesus doesn't need a thermometer because he's God and therefore omniscient.
 
2013-10-27 04:02:15 PM  
I'm still trying to see the real issue with global warming.

it's as if our world is dynamic and not static.
 
2013-10-27 04:02:23 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: FTA "Plenty of studies have shown that the Arctic is warming and that the ice caps are melting "

Failure right out of the gate.


Linking to a Daily Mail article is the very definition of failure.
 
2013-10-27 04:10:52 PM  

taurusowner: Well the fact is temperatures from times past when human did not have the ability to record temperatures (even more so before there were humans at all) can't be verified. Don't confuse extrapolation or hypothesizing with verification. If you don't have actual data, you don't have confirmation of anything. If all you're doing is taking current temperature data, and comparing it to ice cores, rock samples, etc all you're really doing is extrapolating what you think the temperatures likely were based on current understanding of what temperature are.

It's just like when the media publishes stories about "earth like planet discovered X distance away!" When all that was really found was some radio-telescope showing that they thing there's an object orbiting at a certain distance from a star and based on their understanding of orbital distances, it's probably solid, may have water, etc.  They take one fact: the emission from the star being interrupted at regular intervals (indicating an orbiting body might be doing it) and add a hefty dose of sensationalism, and shiat out an "earth like planet discovered" story.

Well the same thing applies here. No matter what we currently know about temperatures now, unless we actually recorded temperatures 40,000 years ago, we don't actually know what they were. We can make guesses. Damn good guesses even. But don't ever forget that they are still just guesses.

What the hell is your point really? Other than to confuse journalism with science, the nature of "actual data", and to imply that science involves "just guesses" (which is about as wrong as you can be without being so far off that you're not even wrong).
 
2013-10-27 04:27:30 PM  
If only the temperatures were recorded by a Bronze Age society of mostly illiterate herders in a book that could be copied and mistranslated many times over to the present day. That would be an accurate record.
 
2013-10-27 04:36:42 PM  
1. CO2 has increased each year, yet Global temperatures has not increased in the past 12 years. Why?

2. This Atlantic Hurricane season has been the quietest in 45 years, despite the frenzied warnings of AlGore & Co. that teh global warmez would bring horrifying increases in storm frequency and strength.

Is warming happening? Obviously. How much is natural (rebound from the mini ice age) and how much is man made? NOBODY FARKING KNOWS! AND STOP ACTING LIKE YOU DO! Now when they come out with the doomsday warnings, people are beginning to laugh and tune them out.

And above all, stop using it as an excuse to expand taxes, and expand government control over the economy.

Want me to take this seriously? Start building nukes, and start the transition to a nuke/electric/hydrogen economy, and STOP telling people to stop driving cars and stop using energy, and stop flying hither and yon. Start deploying engineering solutions, and stop distributing hairshirts to us naughty westerners who have the gall to want to live a comfortable lifestyle.
 
2013-10-27 04:44:36 PM  

mark12A: 1. CO2 has increased each year, yet Global temperatures has not increased in the past 12 years. Why?

2. This Atlantic Hurricane season has been the quietest in 45 years, despite the frenzied warnings of AlGore & Co. that teh global warmez would bring horrifying increases in storm frequency and strength.

Is warming happening? Obviously. How much is natural (rebound from the mini ice age) and how much is man made? NOBODY FARKING KNOWS! AND STOP ACTING LIKE YOU DO! Now when they come out with the doomsday warnings, people are beginning to laugh and tune them out.

And above all, stop using it as an excuse to expand taxes, and expand government control over the economy.

Want me to take this seriously? Start building nukes, and start the transition to a nuke/electric/hydrogen economy, and STOP telling people to stop driving cars and stop using energy, and stop flying hither and yon. Start deploying engineering solutions, and stop distributing hairshirts to us naughty westerners who have the gall to want to live a comfortable lifestyle.


We know. You not knowing doesn't mean others don't.
 
2013-10-27 04:53:21 PM  

Generation_D: Got you flagged as Petroleum Geologist Houston. Sort of figured that might be useful to know when seeing your subsequent posting on topics such as these.

Drillin for Shillin.


I use science in my job.It helps put petroleum in your jelly.
 
2013-10-27 06:02:44 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: FTA "Plenty of studies have shown that the Arctic is warming and that the ice caps are melting "

Failure right out of the gate.


The fact that you believe every conspiracy theory you've ever heard about already suggests that you're not too bright. But this point is very simple and clear ... even you should be able to grasp it.

2013 had very low ice coverage as compared to the previous years. If you look at the strongly negative trend line you will see that 2013 was not only following the trend of massive loss of the arctic ice cap, it was actually below the trend line (i.e. worse).

Using 2013 to suggest that ice levels are recovering is one of the most phenomenally dishonest things I have seen from the denier camp ... which says a lot since they are a pack of pathological liars.

I will say it again very slowly for you: 2013 was a bad year for arctic ice. It was below (i.e. worse than) the strongly negative trend line. Calling it a recovery is nothing short of a bald-faced lie.
 
2013-10-27 06:31:25 PM  

Farking Canuck: J. Frank Parnell: FTA "Plenty of studies have shown that the Arctic is warming and that the ice caps are melting "

Failure right out of the gate.

The fact that you believe every conspiracy theory you've ever heard about already suggests that you're not too bright. But this point is very simple and clear ... even you should be able to grasp it.

2013 had very low ice coverage as compared to the previous years. If you look at the strongly negative trend line you will see that 2013 was not only following the trend of massive loss of the arctic ice cap, it was actually below the trend line (i.e. worse).

Using 2013 to suggest that ice levels are recovering is one of the most phenomenally dishonest things I have seen from the denier camp ... which says a lot since they are a pack of pathological liars.

I will say it again very slowly for you: 2013 was a bad year for arctic ice. It was below (i.e. worse than) the strongly negative trend line. Calling it a recovery is nothing short of a bald-faced lie.


Doesn't matter. The damage is done, and the deniers have won - they've succeeded in delaying any useful preventative action, as scientists have already admitted. Now, all we can commit to is palliative action. The rich will remain rich right up until they either suffer the effects of their own stupidity, or leave the planet - the poor will remain poor and just suffer.
 
2013-10-27 06:36:42 PM  

FormlessOne: Doesn't matter. The damage is done, and the deniers have won


DABDA
 
2013-10-27 07:10:17 PM  

FormlessOne: Doesn't matter. The damage is done, and the deniers have won - they've succeeded in delaying any useful preventative action, as scientists have already admitted. Now, all we can commit to is palliative action. The rich will remain rich right up until they either suffer the effects of their own stupidity, or leave the planet - the poor will remain poor and just suffer.


Man, it is horribly depressing how true that is.
 
2013-10-27 07:59:27 PM  
I live south of DC and the last 3 summers have been fantastic; no humidity, temps in the 80s. Since colonial days state representatives have fled DC in August because of the hideous heat and humidity. The last 2 winters have been mild, little snow and, most importantly, my passionflower (a subtropical plant) has not died back because of the freezing temps. This means that the people in this area have used less energy (air conditioners can be turned back, furnaces aren't running as much) and there have been fewer heat related deaths and fewer car accidents (roads are not snowy or icing up) and fewer hypothermia-related deaths.

/What is everyone whining about?
 
2013-10-27 08:13:42 PM  
Was it a up the butt thermometer?
 
2013-10-27 08:38:11 PM  

Gunther: FormlessOne: Doesn't matter. The damage is done, and the deniers have won - they've succeeded in delaying any useful preventative action, as scientists have already admitted. Now, all we can commit to is palliative action. The rich will remain rich right up until they either suffer the effects of their own stupidity, or leave the planet - the poor will remain poor and just suffer.

Man, it is horribly depressing how true that is.


Its interesting how liberals interpret greenhouse emissions as being the fault of the "1%" when it is really our entire economy that depends on those emissions.

Furthermore, the current increase is being driven by India and China.

If you want to limit CO2 production, you need nuclear power. There is no other energy source that can replace fossil fuel right now.
 
2013-10-27 08:49:30 PM  
Meanwhile, Global warming propagandists argue that the 44,000-year Arctic temperature high can be verified because dinosaur-riding Jesus had a thermometer
 
2013-10-27 09:34:58 PM  

taurusowner: Well the fact is temperatures from times past when human did not have the ability to record temperatures (even more so before there were humans at all) can't be verified. Don't confuse extrapolation or hypothesizing with verification. If you don't have actual data, you don't have confirmation of anything. If all you're doing is taking current temperature data, and comparing it to ice cores, rock samples, etc all you're really doing is extrapolating what you think the temperatures likely were based on current understanding of what temperature are.

It's just like when the media publishes stories about "earth like planet discovered X distance away!" When all that was really found was some radio-telescope showing that they thing there's an object orbiting at a certain distance from a star and based on their understanding of orbital distances, it's probably solid, may have water, etc.  They take one fact: the emission from the star being interrupted at regular intervals (indicating an orbiting body might be doing it) and add a hefty dose of sensationalism, and shiat out an "earth like planet discovered" story.

Well the same thing applies here. No matter what we currently know about temperatures now, unless we actually recorded temperatures 40,000 years ago, we don't actually know what they were. We can make guesses. Damn good guesses even. But don't ever forget that they are still just guesses.


Yup, that's called "Science". It happens to be the best way to advance human understanding. And I have a tendency to give science and those who practice it the benefit of doubt way faster than random internet opinion such as the above.
 
2013-10-27 09:39:31 PM  
 
2013-10-27 09:42:32 PM  

FormlessOne: Doesn't matter. The damage is done, and the deniers have won - they've succeeded in delaying any useful preventative action, as scientists have already admitted. Now, all we can commit to is palliative action. The rich will remain rich right up until they either suffer the effects of their own stupidity, or leave the planet - the poor will remain poor and just suffer.


I actually agree with you to a degree. I wouldn't go so far as to call it palliative though ... more like the opportunity to prevent damaging changes has passed and we are now into the far more expensive damage mitigation mode. The deniers' "do nothing" campaign has succeed in maximizing suffering, damage and cost ... all to make the rich richer.

I actually try to avoid arguing science ... I like to leave that to the scientists. What I do tend to do is point out the ridiculous / idiotic interpretations of data that the deniers live on.

Look at this case. The last two summer seasons were, respectively, one year of "holy fark the ice levels have dropped below our most extreme estimates" followed by one year of "another year of arctic ice levels dropping ... this year slightly worse than the trend".

And the idiots are claiming that "another year of arctic ice levels dropping ... this year slightly worse than the trend" is evidence of recovery. In what bizzaro world can "worse than the very bad trend" be cited as recovery??
 
2013-10-27 10:04:59 PM  

Farking Canuck: And the idiots are claiming that "another year of arctic ice levels dropping ... this year slightly worse than the trend" is evidence of recovery. In what bizzaro world can "worse than the very bad trend" be cited as recovery??


It's the same world where a decade where every single year is one of the top ten hottest years on record is evidence of cooling... because the hottest year on record isn't the most recent year.

/yes, I've seen people seriously argue that in Fark threads.
 
2013-10-27 11:16:09 PM  

mark12A: 1. CO2 has increased each year, yet Global temperatures has not increased in the past 12 years. Why?

2. This Atlantic Hurricane season has been the quietest in 45 years, despite the frenzied warnings of AlGore & Co. that teh global warmez would bring horrifying increases in storm frequency and strength.

Is warming happening? Obviously. How much is natural (rebound from the mini ice age) and how much is man made? NOBODY FARKING KNOWS! AND STOP ACTING LIKE YOU DO! Now when they come out with the doomsday warnings, people are beginning to laugh and tune them out.

And above all, stop using it as an excuse to expand taxes, and expand government control over the economy.

Want me to take this seriously? Start building nukes, and start the transition to a nuke/electric/hydrogen economy, and STOP telling people to stop driving cars and stop using energy, and stop flying hither and yon. Start deploying engineering solutions, and stop distributing hairshirts to us naughty westerners who have the gall to want to live a comfortable lifestyle.


Here's where it gets a little weird: I accept that AGW is real. The planet *is* being changed by our carbon output. That said, I make a very nice living ensuring that, tomorrow, several thousand tons of CO2 will be added to the atmosphere to produce power. I know it's bad for the planet, but so are a lot of things - all of them legal.

I know that coastal lands will see costs in the trillions to deal with rising sea level, but, I gotta eat - and if I don't keep all that equipment running smoothly, you can absolutely bet your comfortable butt that they'd get someone else to do it. If the laws change (pardon me while I stop laughing) then I'm still cool - as long as everyone has to play by the same rules. Considering the breakneck pace we've dealt with highway safety, alcohol use, and mentally ill people with guns, I'm thinking "not farking likely".

Accepting reality doesn't always mean having to pretend it's all rainbows and unicorns. You're going to die. I'm going to die. I'd prefer to die old and comfortable with a Porsche in my garage, all things being equal, of course. But with the way goddam fracking has tanked the natural gas market, I'm probably going to have to settle for an Audi.

So, do what you want - but please, turn your AC down a notch while you do - you know you want to. And leave that computer on.
 
2013-10-27 11:41:00 PM  
and subby is STILL smarter than Al Gore...
 
2013-10-27 11:45:10 PM  

mark12A: Want me to take this seriously? Start building nukes, and start the transition to a nuke/electric/hydrogen economy, and STOP telling people to stop driving cars and stop using energy, and stop flying hither and yon. Start deploying engineering solutions, and stop distributing hairshirts to us naughty westerners who have the gall to want to live a comfortable lifestyle.


We'd  love to do many of those things ... not necessarily exactly as you think what should done but overall the same idea.

But the denier "do nothing" propaganda has effectively stopped any progress. They have an entire political party and its head-bobbing minions believing that scientists are all thieves who lie for the "juicy grant money". It is ridiculous that a country which owes much of its world dominance to its one-time leadership in science and technology that there is this massive anti-science movement.

The fact is that most of us are not arguing specific monetary plans or technologies ... just that we try to work on whatever looks promising. Personally I am in support of nuke power ... especially safer ones like the Candu or possibly new technologies like the Thorium stuff.

The arguments that the deniers keep making about "economy destroying policies" are just red herrings. Just more propaganda and lies to rile up Joe Sixpack. Nobody wants to destroy any economies economy. The scientists (and the people who understand the science) seek actions that will accomplish goals like eventual freedom from fossil fuels (and the endless funneling of money to the middle east), reduction of GHGs, reduction of the smog that is quite brutal around many of our cities, etc.

Does it all have to happen at once? Sooner is better but, no, it does not have to happen at once or be done in a way that is "economy crippling". But the denier "do nothing" campaign has us stalled at the "you cannot prove 100% so let's do nothing" stage.
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

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

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