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.

(NYPost)   *POOF* goes the proof   ( nypost.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Little Ice Age, warm spell, Attribution of recent climate change, global warming  
•       •       •

7240 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Dec 2013 at 6:17 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-12-08 08:31:34 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-12-08 08:45:54 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: I had to check the byline. I thought for sure this was written by my alcoholic uncle known for posting short novels about why Obama is the devil on Facebook.


I'm pretty sure Obama is the devil everywhere.
 
2013-12-08 09:44:26 PM  
Huh. I figured there'd be walls of green text by now.

Though I notice some of the usual idiots have shown up.
 
2013-12-08 10:56:55 PM  

Gleeman: Damnhippyfreak:

What you're posting is analogous to  weather (short-term conditions) when we're actually interested in is  climate(longer-term trends)

[ice-extent.jpg].

35 years of data is long term relative to the planet's climate?


Certainly longer term than a single point in time, but you're quite right in that it's short compared to the history of the planet, and may not be representative depending on what you consider to be "the planet's climate". How about instead 'long enough that we can make meaningful inferences about deviations from the current climate'.


Gleeman: I know...we've only had reliable satellite ice coverage data for that long; I just don't like people saying 'the decline from 1998 is too short to be relevant' then turn around and say that only 20 years more data is, when AGW is generally dated to have 'begun' around 1800. (or arguably much earlier as posted above in the thread)

Also depends on what scale or set of data the chart is using:

/skeptic but not a denier


You're quite right about the scale. What may help would be to note that just looking at trends is very limited as an approach, especially as different processes are simultaneously at work over different scales (something I think you grasp intuitively). Therefore what matters is understanding the underlying processes and mechanisms.
 
2013-12-08 11:21:49 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: This is very similar to the way I view your participation in these threads.
The fact that you argue in favor of warming put the lie to any objective scientific knowledge or interests in the subject


people.virginia.edu

I wish I didn't have to state this explicitly, but you should probably shouldn't be dismissing "objective scientific knowledge" because you don't like the conclusion. What would be better is if you did this the other way around - the "objective scientific knowledge" should determine what you think about the conclusion.


HotIgneous Intruder: Your stance is strictly politically motivated within a discrete period and topic.
You use any narrow position you can conjure in your selfish, self-interestind mind to justify your positions, which are, ultimately, rhetorical and belief-based and have nothing to do with objective reality any more (if they ever did.)


Considering the above, this might be a better descriptor of your own behavior rather than mine. You can't get much more narrow, belief-based, and nothing to do with objective reality than you discounting "any objective scientific knowledge" because you don't like the conclusion.

Unfortunately, this view of yours is all too common - in creationists:
img.fark.net

HotIgneous Intruder: I don't need to respect the scientific method when I can see clearly the logical progression of any acceptance of AGW by the political sphere.

 
2013-12-09 01:23:13 AM  

SVenus: Jim_Callahan: // Don't be fooled into thinking that any given bit of info you hear is 100% correct just because it's generally on the right "side" of a discussion, especially in science.  Science questions almost always have additional factors, that's why the media panics about shiat we don't think anything of all the time.

Yeah, but but politics and grant money and egos, oh my!


Hi! Let's talk radiative forcing, shall we?

Jim_Callahan: IlGreven: So, do you have an alternative hypothesis as to why the earth is warming?

Direct CO2 emission


Can you come back into the thread, please? We need to chat,,,
 
2013-12-09 02:19:53 AM  

Jon Snow: SVenus: Jim_Callahan: // Don't be fooled into thinking that any given bit of info you hear is 100% correct just because it's generally on the right "side" of a discussion, especially in science.  Science questions almost always have additional factors, that's why the media panics about shiat we don't think anything of all the time.

Yeah, but but politics and grant money and egos, oh my!

Hi! Let's talk radiative forcing, shall we?



I dunno... between him asking  in the other thread whether a behavioral study involving fish was double blind and gems like the following (about the same paper, mind you):

SVenus: No, I didn't bother to read the paywalled paper.


SVenus: Again, I will contend someone decided on the requested results, and someone else provided the "research" required to meet those results.  Made.Up.Science.



...you've probably better off talking about basic science literacy before you get to radiative forcing.
 
2013-12-09 02:40:54 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: Jon Snow: SVenus: Jim_Callahan: // Don't be fooled into thinking that any given bit of info you hear is 100% correct just because it's generally on the right "side" of a discussion, especially in science.  Science questions almost always have additional factors, that's why the media panics about shiat we don't think anything of all the time.

Yeah, but but politics and grant money and egos, oh my!

Hi! Let's talk radiative forcing, shall we?


I dunno... between him asking  in the other thread whether a behavioral study involving fish was double blind and gems like the following (about the same paper, mind you):

SVenus: No, I didn't bother to read the paywalled paper.

SVenus: Again, I will contend someone decided on the requested results, and someone else provided the "research" required to meet those results.  Made.Up.Science.


...you've probably better off talking about basic science literacy before you get to radiative forcing.


But he's a petroleum geologist.

A PETROLEUM. GEOLOGIST!

There's no way he'd be biased. No way at all.
 
Displayed 8 of 108 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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