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.

(The Daily Caller)   If you think Global Warming is bad now, you should have been around during the times of ancient Rome   (dailycaller.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, global warming, Middle Ages, Earth, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Reading University, Georgia Institute of Technology, warm period  
•       •       •

4685 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Dec 2013 at 7:49 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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

 
2013-12-15 12:12:16 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: Any graph where the timescale is less than a century or two is talking about weather, not climate.


"Climate" is generally defined as averaged weather over periods of 30 years or longer. There are good statistical reasons for this with regard to separating signal from noise in indices like globally-averaged surface temperature in the absence of boat loads of additional information. It's not an absolute rule- if you have more information about drivers of temp, you can detect signals on shorter timescales, and for other variables it may take much longer due to confounding factors.

Generally, when you look at graphs, you want to look at periods that are relevant to the process you're interested in. If you're interested in the impact of the diurnal cycle on surface temperature in a given locality, looking at 100 million years of global data with a resolution of a couple million years isn't going to tell you anything relevant.

In general (though there are exceptions), looking at the impact of radiative forcing on climatic properties like globally-averaged surface temperature and precipitation would lead you to look at multidecadal timescales to centennial timescales.
 
2013-12-15 12:17:50 PM  

SVenus: Do you mean that only Briffa and other dendro types can purposefully exclude trees from a study like Briffa does here?


No, I don't mean that at all. What you just said and quoted is a total non sequitur.

What point do you think you're making?

You say nothing about this subject whatsoever apart from what you read on denialist blogs. You don't make meaningful statements, you just regurgitate things other people write and quote.

Tell us what Keith Briffa has to do with whether or not the paper TFA refers to says anything about the reality or attribution to human cause of global warming. Or what it says about dendro in general. Anything.

Say something in your own words. Make an explicit argument. Act like an adult. Stop parroting things you don't understand.
 
2013-12-15 12:32:30 PM  
it's hilarious that we, as a society, are actually debating about whether or not counter-terraforming our planet is a good idea or not.
 
2013-12-15 12:34:58 PM  

DesertDemonWY: can you show us where on this graph teh arctic death spriral?


You mean this death spiral?

i.imgur.com

DesertDemonWY: can you explain why, from the same graph, total global sea ice extent is above average?


Because the Arctic ice is in its recovery phase and Antarctic ice is just starting its seasonal melt.

But what is the point of conflating Arctic vs. global sea ice?

Do you actually think that Antarctic sea ice has the same significance for the climate system, regional environment, and geopolitics that Arctic sea ice does? If so, we can discuss why that's not the case. If not, you're engaging in a red herring fallacy.
 
2013-12-15 01:05:07 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Uncle Tractor: The planet isn't changing on it's own; we're changing it. All that carbon we're spewing isn't going away by itself.

Maybe we are changing it, but that isn't exclusive to the planet going through it's natural cycles.


Natural cycles don't happen in a century. Natural cycles are irrelevant on this scale.

And you know it.

I'm not arguing against our involvement, only that your absolute is absurd.  Of course the planet is changing on it's own.  Deserts creep forward, earthquakes shift the earth, etc.  Our environment, to include the land on which we stand, is a hostile one.

Now you're being pedantic.

Saying that does not happen is ludicrous.

...And now you're playing with straw-men.

Note:  Even amongst many of those scientists, they will talk about how they don't have proof, how their studies seem to indicate....etc.

Wow, you've just invalidated all of science. Good jerb.

What I find entertaining, is how even scientists refuse to commit, yet farkers treat some things as gospel put upon earth by the hand of god, resolute faith.

See, some of us farkers know that we can't keep on shiatting our nest without paying the price later on. That's why both China and India are trying to clean up their acts. It'll probably take a few generations, but at least they're not just sitting on their arses saying "there's not point unless every last person on the planet does the same."

It entertains me to call people out on that.  That's all.

Meanwhile, your posts in this thread aren't much more than a catalogue of denier tactics. Have fun listening to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. I'd rather listen to what actual climatologists have to say on the matter.
 
2013-12-15 01:24:28 PM  

omeganuepsilon: I smell lingering butthurt.


omeganuepsilon: Awe, still in touch with your mom then, what a good son.


If you meet an asshole in the morning, he could be a garden variety asshole, likely is for most people.  If you meet assholes all day long, it's a distinct possibility that in all reality, you're the only asshole, the common denominator.

As far as this thread goes, you're the only real asshole I've seen.
 
2013-12-15 01:24:54 PM  

omeganuepsilon: A large part of the thread, as it often is, an alarmist points how how small scales of time are insufficient to judge( a day is too small, a month, a year, a few years, etc).  Some say we need decades, some say we need several or a hundred years.  He could have just been mocking the arbitrary argument itself and being ludicrous at suggesting eons.

So, I'll bring it back to actual discussion, what is the optimal scale to go by?  Apparently a day is right out.  A year? 5? 10?  1000?  10,000?  More?

Rhetorical of course.


Why is that rhetorical? It's a legitimate question. For a serious response, see my response here:

http://www.fark.com/comments/8060183/88184111#c88184111

A lot of arguments alarmists use against deniers easily backfire.  A lot of people from either side, at least here on fark, are poorly equipped to argue the points.  As so many claim, if those scientists are so reliable, why not let them handle it?  Paranoia, belief, fear.  That is why the argument comes off as zealotic.

Either side, here on fark, amounts to a crusade.


"Both sides are bad, so..."  ?

Are there no people who represent the mainstream scientific perspective that are not, in your opinion, "zealots" or "crusaders" or "alarmists"?

The whole presence of the topic here on fark is a sad joke.  However, there are more alarmists using bad arguments to fark with.  It's too easy to take the side of the majority, pick on the little guy, drown him out with quantity.  However, picking apart your "team's" posts, that's more of a challenge.  A person has to wade into the thick of it.

So is that you are doing? "Picking apart your 'team's posts"? Because to be perfectly honest, it doesn't sound at all like you're offering a scientifically-based pushback to what you think is over-reach by "alarmists" or whatever. Your comments are pretty indistinguishable from run of the mill contrarian talking points.

It's entertaining.

So are you just trolling for fun, or do you actually have a desire to understand the issue? If the latter, please let me know if there's anything specific you'd like to discuss.

Cheers.
 
2013-12-15 01:34:47 PM  

DrPainMD: No... this is how realists view climate change.


Dominated by changes in radiative forcing, principally (but not exclusively) long-lived greenhouse gases such as CO2?

i.imgur.com

Agreed!
 
2013-12-15 02:06:34 PM  

SevenizGud: But don't worry, it's only been 198 months. I am sure that warming will begin again reaaaaaaaaal soon, right?


And 5 of those were at or amongst the warmest years on record.  You remember back in '94 when you people were saying it was just an anomaly?  Well, by your own proof, you're suggesting that that warming is the new normal, and not merely cyclical.

So congratulations.  Your logic is making the case in favour of AGW, not against it.
 
2013-12-15 02:23:17 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Damnhippyfreak: I should mention,  DesertDemonWY, that we can always pick this up next thread if you don't manage to get to it this thread. I'll repost the above next time if you don't manage to get around to it, unless you object. It would be a shame to have to start again from scratch.

If we can finally give you a better understanding of this stuff, it would save us both a lot of unnecessary time and effort in the future (besides putting you in a much better position to understand the science).

Next time we "pick this up:"
even more CO2 will have entered the atmosphere
It will have done jack shiat to the global temperature
you will still be a AGW fan boy



Your perception of "have done jack shiat to the global temperature" is based upon the problems that I have attempted to highlight above. We can get into the evidence a bit more, but it would greatly help if you would get this basic idea of scale under your belt. This problem is severely hampering your ability to properly read and interpret graphs and data and you need to understand it before being able to tackle anything more complex than the very simple and superficial interpretation of linear trends we've been restricted to so far.

Hopefully you'll be more open to it next time. Maybe as a bit of a kick in the pants, ask yourself why you ignored the argumentation I presented? What does this say about how rationally you're approaching this topic? Can you do better?
 
2013-12-15 02:25:33 PM  

Uncle Tractor: omeganuepsilon: Uncle Tractor: The planet isn't changing on it's own; we're changing it. All that carbon we're spewing isn't going away by itself.

Maybe we are changing it, but that isn't exclusive to the planet going through it's natural cycles.

Natural cycles don't happen in a century. Natural cycles are irrelevant on this scale.


The whole cycle, no.  But you don't just look at a small timeframe and say "nothing's happening".  Same flaw your fellow alarmist believers call out in the deniers.  Parts of the cycles are happening, but they are gradual, some less so than others.

But backpedal on your asinine comments some more, this is entertaining.  You're on your way setting a world record for putting your foot in your mouth.

Uncle Tractor: omeganuepsilon:Saying that does not happen is ludicrous.

...And now you're playing with straw-men.


Do you know what a straw man even is?  It is not directly quoting you, like this.

Uncle Tractor: The planet isn't changing on it's own; we're changing it.


Maybe I am being pedantic, but with that, I am technically correct, and as noted above, that's the best kind of correct.

Uncle Tractor: Note:  Even amongst many of those scientists, they will talk about how they don't have proof, how their studies seem to indicate....etc.

Wow, you've just invalidated all of science. Good jerb.


Another absolute.  You may just be entirely incapable of learning.

I'm not invalidating anything but claims some of some of those scientist's more zealotic followers.

I love science.  It works(biatches).  Wanna be scientists who operate more on belief than rational use of credible information, less so.

fatassbastard: omeganuepsilon: I smell lingering butthurt.

omeganuepsilon: Awe, still in touch with your mom then, what a good son.

If you meet an asshole in the morning, he could be a garden variety asshole, likely is for most people.  If you meet assholes all day long, it's a distinct possibility that in all reality, you're the only asshole, the common denominator.


How true.  Much like a real scientist, you do leave room for error.  Things like "could" and "possibility" and "if".
How very astute of you to take my own post and use it perfectly in a thread that draws much less intelligent people like flies to horse-shiat.

Congratulations, you're well on your way to being self aware.

Thing is, even an possible asshole, me for example, isn't wrong just on the grounds that they're an asshole.  If Hitler said 1+1 = 2, he would still be technically correct.  Need I re-type about that again?

Jon Snow: Are there no people who represent the mainstream scientific perspective that are not, in your opinion, "zealots" or "crusaders" or "alarmists"?


Are there any that disagree with you, even in part, that are not "deniers"?

Jon Snow: Your comments are pretty indistinguishable from run of the mill contrarian talking points.


You just summed up 102% of fark global warming posts from either side, and probably 65% of fark in general.

Welcome to Fark!  Good to see you're getting to know the place.

Jon Snow: So are you just trolling for fun, or do you actually have a desire to understand the issue?


The issue?  The issue is that it's a highly politicized topic.  On either side you have people taking a certain stance because they have an agenda, because it falls in line with their other political beliefs.

I'm not too curious, so I am not really in need of further information.  I say "further" because I have read extensively on the topic and hold an informed opinion.  Admittedly, with some apathy, I say, why bother?  Some of man's greatest feats and advancements come when he's under pressure.  Either we adapt and overcome, or we don't.

Either way, from a moral standpoint, I don't think we deserve to rule the planet.  We are a horrible species in a hundred ways.  Best we can do is try to stop from killing each other, abusing each other, oppress each other, and stopping those that do choose to do such things.  If we do manage to kill each other by intent or accident, the planet will continue without us.  It does not need saving.
 
2013-12-15 02:40:54 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Need I re-type about that again?


Nope, I just thought it was hilarious that you focus on how there's no evidence to support a deity in the other thread, then in this thread you ignore the evidence presented to you, present no evidence to support your contention, and call people names,

Have fun, buddy.
 
2013-12-15 02:45:07 PM  

fatassbastard: omeganuepsilon: Need I re-type about that again?

Nope, I just thought it was hilarious that you focus on how there's no evidence to support a deity in the other thread, then in this thread you ignore the evidence presented to you, present no evidence to support your contention, and call people names,

Have fun, buddy.


Ignoring evidence?

When I'm calling someone out for an asinine absolute statement and directly quoting it?

Oh, right, I'm a "denier".  Gotcha.

I love how people in these threads go out of their way to imagine me into a particular argument that they're set on arguing against, instead of actually reading and comprehending the written word.

It confirms my notion that humans are not worth saving as a species, some more not worth it than others obviously, but still.
 
2013-12-15 02:45:18 PM  

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 [models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

[www.skepticalscience.net image 500x340]

Sorry to have to keep hitting you over the head with this, but you're apparently still not grasping the basic concept.

Sorry to have to keep hitting you over the head with this, but you're apparently still not grasping the basic concept that past performance is not predictive of future performance.


Perhaps it would be better to say that 'past performance is not necessarily predictive of future performance'. Otherwise, your statement as it stands would preclude any prediction of any phenomenon. What you're saying would argue equally against anything from the existence of gravity, to evolution, to whether the sun will come up tomorrow. What you're arguing is a bit meaningless.

That aside, the above modified statement is the reason why attribution of climate change is based upon more than simplistically looking at trends and instead based on understanding of the underlying processes and mechanisms. All this talk about linear trends is a bit of a side-show to the bulk of the meaningful science. Unfortunately, with DesertDemonWY (and with you, unless you've started to increase your understanding), we're still talking about these basic ideas of scale.


SevenizGud: If the temp anomaly went to -5 and stayed there for 30 years straight, the Chicken Littlers would still be talking about how warm it is going to be when this temporary drop ends and the warming begins again in earnest.


Besides violating your own caution against predicting future performance, coming up with imaginary  responses to imaginary scenarios isn't going to tell you much beyond your own imagination. However, I do suggest if you're tiring of hyperbole in the popular media, stick as close as you can to the scientific literature.


SevenizGud: But don't worry, it's only been 198 months. I am sure that warming will begin again reaaaaaaaaal soon, right?


As always, you're more than welcome to engage with any of the counter-arguments people like Jon Snow and myself (and others) have repeatedly provided to you in the past. What you should be asking yourself is the deeper question about why you've been hiding from them again and again and what your behavior tells you about how rationally you're approaching this topic.
 
2013-12-15 02:54:43 PM  

DrPainMD: Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 [models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

[graph of temperature change since 1970.jpg]

Sorry to have to keep hitting you over the head with this, but you're apparently still not grasping the basic concept.

No... this is how realists view climate change.

[math.ucr.edu image 650x396]



Sure, if the 'real' you're interested in is changes on the order of millions of years. However, in the context of climate change (and therefore changes of tens to hundreds of years), looking at such a long period of time, while useful in terms of broad context, can be misleading.  Such a long scale can inform us, but extreme caution is warranted if you're going to make inferences from it - one could mistakenly conclude that ENSO doesn't exist if you exclusively used your graph, for example.
 
2013-12-15 02:57:05 PM  

omeganuepsilon: I'm not too curious, so I am not really in need of further information.  I say "further" because I have read extensively on the topic and hold an informed opinion


Hey, that's great! It's always a joy to talk to Farkers who have read extensively on the issue and hold informed opinions. They're a rare breed, especially relative to people suffering from D-K who are incapable of understanding how vast the gulf between knowledge and trivia is on this issue.

So what are your thoughts on the validity of continuing to stick with an ECS/Charney sensitivity paradigm vs. alternatives like "dynamical" sensitivity (which have a less abstract basis and focus on changes in the general circulation, like the Hadley circulation and mid-latitude jets)?

What are your thoughts on using prescribed SSTs in the Nino region while letting the rest of the world evolve freely to assess the influence of ENSO/PDO on decadal surface temperature tends?

Do you think that it's funny how much the supposed Miocene "paradox" dominated "skeptical" perspectives until even relatively recently, and how quiet they've been on recent geochemical and modeling evidence reconciling expectations of radiative forcing and temp?

But I'm being rude! You probably have different interests than me. What are some issues or topics that your extensive reading have informed your opinion on that are interesting to you?
 
2013-12-15 03:01:07 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Uncle Tractor: The whole cycle, no.  But you don't just look at a small timeframe and say "nothing's happening".  Same flaw your fellow alarmist believers call out in the deniers.  Parts of the cycles are happening, but they are gradual, some less so than others.


The natural cycles are too slow to be relevant here. Do try to keep up.

But backpedal on your asinine comments some more, this is entertaining.  You're on your way setting a world record for putting your foot in your mouth.

i560.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-15 03:06:06 PM  

SVenus: Jon Snow: Try to say something remotely intelligent about dendro

Do you mean that only Briffa and other dendro types can purposefully exclude trees from a study like Briffa does here?

"Finally a site was found, but the trees in this nearby forest were not considered
ideal for dendroclimatic analysis. This stand was located on the sandy shore of river, where
the depth of permafrost is more than 2 m. In such conditions the trees developed a deep root
system. Where the sand bank of the river had migrated away, a thick layer of moss developed,
and the permafrost was much closer to the surface (up to 20-30 cm) and the roots of trees
could be observed within the frozen ground. The trees at this location have reduced growth
and appear to be dying. Despite this, a set of modern samples from 18 trees was taken from
this site "Khad.raw" (Schweingruber and Briffa 1996). However, we consider that the
chronology produced from this site is not suitable for dendroclimatic analysis. "
from  http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/papers/briffa2013qsr/SM2_YamalTreesV3.pd f

No, I'm afraid I can't tell you anything on the subject that you can't already tell us.

 /// and now for a polar bear holding his breath
[i.imgur.com image 850x565]



But was that study double blind or not? Were the trees aware of what Briffa wanted?

/just ribbing you
//carry on
 
2013-12-15 03:38:16 PM  

Jon Snow: recent geochemical and modeling evidence reconciling expectations of radiative forcing and temp?


I for one would be interested in this. Is it a specific paper?
 
2013-12-15 03:44:58 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Are there any that disagree with you, even in part, that are not "deniers"?


On Fark? I have encountered plenty of people who started off in disagreement, walked through evidence with me, and updated their views in light of the evidence. These are not "deniers".

Are you asking if there are any people that have both seen and yet continue to reject the evidence for attribution who are not "deniers"? Impossible expectations are a hallmark of denialism, so I don't know how one could do the former without falling into the category of the latter unless we redefine words to mean things they currently do not.

Parts of the cycles are happening, but they are gradual, some less so than others.

Which "cycles"? Be explicit. What are their names? What are their periodicities? What are the sign, magnitude, and rate of forcing by which they are impacting the global energy balance?

The issue?  The issue is that it's a highly politicized topic.  On either side you have people taking a certain stance because they have an agenda, because it falls in line with their other political beliefs.

That's not actually true in the scientific community. While liberals/democrats are of course disproportionately represented in the physical sciences relative to the population of the US, even still the scientific consensus is near unanimous. If scientists were divided on this issue along even representatively partisan/ideological lines, the consensus would be weaker than the ~97% of publishing relevant experts.

Either we adapt and overcome, or we don't.

Sure. That's tautologically true. It's also meaningless in any context relevant to either the science or potential policy responses.

Either way, from a moral standpoint, I don't think we deserve to rule the planet.  We are a horrible species in a hundred ways.  Best we can do is try to stop from killing each other, abusing each other, oppress each other, and stopping those that do choose to do such things.  If we do manage to kill each other by intent or accident, the planet will continue without us.  It does not need saving.

The planet might not "need saving", but that is irrelevant. We are currently altering the climate in a geologically unprecedented fashion. Because we are driving it, it is in our power to pursue this change unchecked, to slow, or even to stabilize it. This spectrum of trajectories leads to a spectrum of outcomes. Changes in sea level (and thus exposure to storm surge, uninhability of nearshore property, etc.), extremes in heat and heavy precipitation events, conditions suitable for agricultural productivity, some types of disease vectors, viable habitat for many species, phenology based on temperature rather than light, etc. will all change. And in turn humans, as "horrible" as you believe they are, as prone to violence as you believe they are, will have to live with the consequences.

We have the technology to ensure that the amount of future change is relatively small. We have the technological and political inertia to ensure that the amount of future change is relatively large if nothing is intentionally done to avoid it.

If your primary concern is human strife irrespective of changing climate, then you might consider climate change as a threat multiplier rather than as a dichotomous, competing issue to be concerned about.
 
2013-12-15 03:51:22 PM  

Jon Snow: So what are your thoughts on this stuff which I have a suspicion that you don't know about...


It know's how to be condescending, how cute!

omeganuepsilon: Admittedly, with some apathy, I say, why bother?  Some of man's greatest feats and advancements come when he's under pressure.  Either we adapt and overcome, or we don't.

Either way, from a moral standpoint, I don't think we deserve to rule the planet.  We are a horrible species in a hundred ways.  Best we can do is try to stop from killing each other, abusing each other, oppress each other, and stopping those that do choose to do such things.  If we do manage to kill each other by intent or accident, the planet will continue without us.  It does not need saving.


I do find it entertaining.  Half of this thread needs their hands held and walked through basic logic and language, but I'm a bad guy because I have an opinion about AGW and what we should/shouldn't do(a social subject) with out having a climatology degree.

I suppose I'll just have to go back to school to study everything so I know it all and can prove it on fark.

Uncle Tractor:

The natural cycles are too slow to be relevant here.

Now you're catching on.  It only took what, 4 posts to get you to make a rational statement that was not at least partly but outright false.  You've shifted from ignorant absolutes to something a bit more subjective.  Good for you, you get a gold star for today.  Now after snack time and your nap, you can start art class.  Today you get to glue macaroni to paper.
 
2013-12-15 03:53:54 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Now you're catching on.  It only took what, 4 posts to get you to make a rational statement that was not at least partly but outright false.


i560.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-15 04:06:30 PM  

omeganuepsilon: It know's how to be condescending, how cute!

 If it wasn't for the apostrophe, I think that sentence could have almost reached self-awareness.
 
2013-12-15 04:11:55 PM  
Global warming might be fake, so lets not use energy systems that are more than likely better!

Reminded of this every-time I hear "E-cigs might be dangerous! We should ban them, because they might lead to the use of deadly tobacco cigarettes!"

Remember kids, green energy might lead to the use of hydrocarbons!
 
2013-12-15 04:12:06 PM  

omeganuepsilon: It know's how to be condescending, how cute!


So now it's condescending to take someone's assertions at face value?

Look, I didn't ask you to derive the saturated adiabatic lapse rate, or give your thoughts on spatially-varying calibration techniques for geochemical proxies.

I asked your opinion about some pretty general questions about concrete examples in a field that you have read extensively about and have an informed opinion on.

If instead I assumed that you were talking out of your ass about the bolded part of above, and called you a liar and mocked you for your ignorance, that may indeed have been condescension (though whether deserved or not would be debatable).

Instead I took your claim at face value, treated you as I would anyone with such familiarity with the topic, and asked your opinion about questions that are of interest to me. And also asked what interested you.

So fuc|< me for that, right?

And recall, I made several genuine offers to you for constructive dialog and willingness to answer questions about a field that most people (recognizing their own ignorance) regard as a bit esoteric. It was your response (claiming lack of interest due to your extensive reading) to this offer from me that precipitated this whole line of commenting.

If you're both not interested in learning about the topic AND making exaggerated claims of knowledge about the topic, it's hard to understand why anyone should assume you're here to talk in good faith.
 
2013-12-15 04:22:19 PM  

Jon Snow: Are you asking if there are any people that have both seen and yet continue to reject the evidence for attribution who are not "deniers"? Impossible


So, you imagine that I am rejecting the evidence?

Jon Snow: Parts of the cycles are happening, but they are gradual, some less so than others.

Which "cycles"? Be explicit. What are their names? What are their periodicities? What are the sign, magnitude, and rate of forcing by which they are impacting the global energy balance?


I even admitted that it was a pedantic argument and you still drone on about this crap. I bet you're just innocently asking questions, right?  Does that accusation sound familiar to anyone here?

Jon Snow: The issue?  The issue is that it's a highly politicized topic.  On either side you have people taking a certain stance because they have an agenda, because it falls in line with their other political beliefs.

That's not actually true in the scientific community.


You know, we're here on fark though.  I was talking about fark, I specifically noted it several times.

Jon Snow: And in turn humans, as "horrible" as you believe they are, as prone to violence as you believe they are, will have to live with the consequences.


And now return to something that I was actually talking about.  Difficult for you guys to respond to what's actually there, but at least you came around.

Yes, people will have to live with it.  A lot of people live with some pretty miserable shiat right now.

I find the claim of "save the humanity of the future" to be falsely bleeding heart and quite hypocritical.

Jon Snow: If your primary concern


I have apathy in that regard. As stated, I don't have a concern for our species at large.  Anything above trying to keep us from killing each other as well as the other things I listed, is a bit of wasted effort, indeed, can even be oppressive.

For example.  I live in an area that only has dirty(coal) power.  Raising taxes on that company is not a disincentive, it just gets passed onto the consumer in the form of higher costs.  Nothing is reduced, the cry for positive change has caused strife.

To really get a leg up on the issue, you(the government) are going to have to forcefully step in and develop.  Providing incentives, disincentives, taxes and tax write-offs, subsidizing, etc, jsut isn't a big enough motivator for companies to move in.  Can't force them to, that would be unethical(HA!).

Now, when they do move in, how do they do so.  do they buy out landowners by their own free will?  The government?
(again, HA!)

Just being on the "right" side of the issue doesn't make anyone a better person.  However you slice it some bad things are going to need to be done(and some already are, to near zero effect aside from hampering the economy).

I say hang it all, and suggest people enjoy themselves the best they can.  When bad things come down the pipe through nature, let the chips fall where they may.

As I said above.  I'm all for being as green as possible, but much of that is out of reach for much of america, much less on a global scale.  The technology is not as far along as a lot of you would like to think, at least not at a price point that's feasible on scale.
 
2013-12-15 04:35:11 PM  

Jon Snow: exaggerated claims


Citation needed.  Wait, I think i know what you're referring to:

"I say "further" because I have read extensively on the topic and hold an informed opinion. "

That somewhat subjective bit?  How can anything that vague be exaggerated, especially in light of the opinion boiling down to "not a fark was given, even if we are the reason for it"?

As to the rest of your post, the sarcasm is evident.

Jon Snow: So fuc|< me for that, right?


Partially correct.  I would say it more like, "fark off and die, you disingenuous and pretentious asshole." But more or less, yeah.
 
2013-12-15 04:40:58 PM  

omeganuepsilon: I would say it more like, "fark off and die, you disingenuous and pretentious asshole." But more or less, yeah.


Thanks for the unambiguous confirmation that you're not worth trying to discuss things with in good faith.
 
2013-12-15 04:46:33 PM  

Jon Snow: omeganuepsilon: I would say it more like, "fark off and die, you disingenuous and pretentious asshole." But more or less, yeah.

Thanks for the unambiguous confirmation that you're not worth trying to discuss things with in good faith.


If you'd have stuck to only what I actually posted, I wouldn't have had to resort to that.  You being an unmitigated ass kind of pushed me into it.

bloomradio.com
 
2013-12-15 04:52:35 PM  
You shouldn't have worn that dress, Jon Snow.
 
2013-12-15 04:53:48 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Jon Snow: recent geochemical and modeling evidence reconciling expectations of radiative forcing and temp?

I for one would be interested in this. Is it a specific paper?


No, a couple from a couple different directions. If I don't get the refs to you this thread, shoot me an email or get me in the next thread.
 
2013-12-15 04:54:42 PM  

fatassbastard: You shouldn't have worn that dress, Jon Snow.


BUT MOM HE STARTED IT BY QUOTING ME

/blame the victim indeed
 
2013-12-15 05:58:18 PM  

Jon Snow: Try to say something remotely intelligent about dendro, specifically relating to anything Keith Briffa has published with respect to reconstructions in Siberia.


The Briffa Method:


imageshack.us
 
2013-12-15 05:58:20 PM  
The thread might be basically over now, but I'd just like to comment that  omeganuepsilon hasn't actually said anything about climate change since his first few comments, and he is just talking pendantics and  ad hominem to avoid discussing the topic at hand, seeing as how all of his early points were soundly crushed.

That is all.
 
2013-12-15 05:59:47 PM  
In this thread: omega melts down, blames everyone else, implies that he is just trolling. But that'd never be true, because there are no trolls on Fark.
 
2013-12-15 06:01:10 PM  
Hide the decline.
 
2013-12-15 07:14:53 PM  

New Farkin User Name: hasn't actually said anything about climate change since his first few comments, and he is just talking pendantics and  ad hominem  to avoid discussing the topic at hand


Because that's a requirement? I'm compelled to do so?

Also, I did discuss it.  Several times I admited that it very may well be true and caused by humans.(I just love that I say it that way bugs you guys so much)

However, I simply don't care.  Guess I'm just an evil blasphemer, a dirty sinner, and a denier.

Zafler: melts down


Huh?  I've had a jovial time on a lazy cold Sunday afternoon.  Didn't you?

Zafler: But that'd never be true, because there are no trolls on Fark.


Especially not stalkers with grudges, god scientists forbid!
Fark, it's serious business.  Heads of state get their info right here as well as a majority of voters.  We are having world changing discussions right now.
 
2013-12-15 07:15:08 PM  

SevenizGud: The Briffa Method:


That cartoon is funny. It's basically mocking/strawmanning the legitimate processes by which people look at trends in noisy data sets made up of discontinuous records. In other words, it could just as easily be applied to visualizations of the denialist-favored UAH satellite record as it can proxy reconstructions.

In any event, it hardly applies to Keith Briffa's publications, let alone have anything to do with specific chronologies in Siberia.

And of course, the "difficulty" part of my comment was:

Jon Snow: Difficulty: Can't be regurgitated blogspam and must demonstrate you actually understand what you're saying.

So, you know, troll harder.
 
2013-12-15 08:03:16 PM  

DrPainMD: Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 [models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

[graph of temperature change since 1970.jpg]

Sorry to have to keep hitting you over the head with this, but you're apparently still not grasping the basic concept.

No... this is how realists view climate change.

[math.ucr.edu image 650x396]


That's cute. Do you really think humanity could have lived on the planet for the entirety of the Earth's lifespan? Do you think there have never been mass extinctions related to geologically sudden climate change?
 
2013-12-15 09:54:37 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 [models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#globalTemp


And you can go back another couple hundred years to see it was right about where it is now back then but let's just concentrate on being arrogant to think man controls everything.

Its actually easier and safer to believe its all our fault and we can fix everything, if it were let out that we have no control over anything then those in charge lose their power.
 
2013-12-15 10:20:03 PM  

steamingpile: Zeppelininthesky: DesertDemonWY: With the global temp anomaly at 0.176C over the last ten years and falling, no I don't think global warming is bad now

 [models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#globalTemp

And you can go back another couple hundred years to see it was right about where it is now back then but let's just concentrate on being arrogant to think man controls everything.

Its actually easier and safer to believe its all our fault and we can fix everything, if it were let out that we have no control over anything then those in charge lose their power.


You're knocking down a straw-man. You'll be hard pressed to find people who think that "man controls everything" and that "we can fix everything", and you certainly won't find such in the scientific literature or actual policy being proposed and implemented. Similarily, "we have no control over anything" is erring on the opposite, but equally extreme side.

I suggest instead of black-or-white extremes of total or no control, we instead recognize something in the middle. I also suggest that you taking a closer look at the actual science or policy would help in this - the real world tends not to be conducive to the sort of absolutes you're putting forward here.
 
2013-12-15 11:52:30 PM  

New Farkin User Name: The thread might be basically over now, but I'd just like to comment that  omeganuepsilon hasn't actually said anything about climate change since his first few comments, and he is just talking pendantics and  ad hominem to avoid discussing the topic at hand, seeing as how all of his early points were soundly crushed.

That is all.


Zafler: In this thread: omega melts down, blames everyone else, implies that he is just trolling. But that'd never be true, because there are no trolls on Fark.


Jon Snow's world class beat down and omega's hissy fit were both great.  The best part was watching omega go from arguing both sides of the debate should be more rational, argue using evidence and stuff like that directly to name calling and total refusal to discuss the topic like an adult.  I wish I had made popcorn before entering the thread.

omeganuepsilon: However, I simply don't care.


Let's see you posted 16 times in the thread, you frequently visit climate change threads, you claim to have read "extensively" on the topic and claim to hold "an informed opinion" and you used the world "alarmist" roughly 10 times.  Yeah, I'm not buying it.  Here's what I am buying: you attempted to discuss the topic at first, but then immediately moved to name calling when pressed.  Then when Jon Snow made it blindingly obvious you don't have a farking clue what you're talking about then, and only then, did you retreat to "not caring".
 
2013-12-16 03:57:39 AM  

omeganuepsilon: But a specific absolute was chosen and ran with, like a typical zealot does.  That could have even been his intention, knowing gunther would take enough rope to hang yourself...A rational person, especially an intelligent one, would have simply asked him to clarify.  They would have refused the bait and handed the rope back.


So he had a brilliant ploy to make me look like an idiot by... correctly interpreting his post.

I'm not sure you've thought this through, dude.
 
2013-12-16 05:12:13 AM  

Gunther: omeganuepsilon: But a specific absolute was chosen and ran with, like a typical zealot does.  That could have even been his intention, knowing gunther would take enough rope to hang yourself...A rational person, especially an intelligent one, would have simply asked him to clarify.  They would have refused the bait and handed the rope back.

So he had a brilliant ploy to make me look like an idiot by... correctly interpreting his post.

I'm not sure you've thought this through, dude.


So you're saying:
imagemacros.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-12-16 08:56:32 AM  

Zafler: In this thread: omega melts down, blames everyone else, implies that he is just trolling. But that'd never be true, because there are no trolls on Fark.


FARK: Not Trolls, but #1 With Trolls!
 
Displayed 45 of 145 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






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