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.

(Time)   Climate change skeptics point to freezing weather to deny historical warming trends. As you might expect, science explains why they are wrong, again   (science.time.com) divider line 214
    More: Interesting, climate change skeptics, market trends, atmospheric wave, global warming, climate change  
•       •       •

2733 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Jan 2014 at 5:45 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-06 02:01:57 PM  
I think recent events supported by facts....specifically the hilarious climate change expedition to document the "disappearing sea ice" - which ISN'T. Kinda trumps the pseudo science.
 
2014-01-06 02:17:49 PM  

voltOhm: I think recent events supported by facts....specifically the hilarious climate change expedition to document the "disappearing sea ice" - which ISN'T. Kinda trumps the pseudo science.


First of all- yeah, it is.  Because coverage isn't an indication of ice quality- It can be frozen and refreeze over a huge area (which it did recently, and which you mistakenly believe to mean that the ice isn't going anywhere), but be very thin  i.e. can disappear again just as quickly (quicker, actually).  And your own military believes it, as well.  They're preparing for the day (arriving much sooner than forecasted, btw) when there is ice-free sailing through the northwest passage.

But you're right about one thing- sea ice alone doesn't prove or disprove anything.  It's just one more data point with which we can establish a trend, which is the thing we're actually concerned with when figuring out climate change.

Your lack of even basic scientific principles is astounding.  Even more astounding is the confidence with which you believe them.
 
2014-01-06 02:19:38 PM  
Global warming scientists explain why they BELIEVE the non-global warming scientists are wrong.  Neither side had proven their beliefs 100% and there is evidence for and against each side.
 
2014-01-06 02:22:54 PM  

voltOhm: pseudo science


i42.tinypic.com
 
2014-01-06 02:27:38 PM  

HoustonNick: Global warming scientists explain why they BELIEVE the non-global warming scientists are wrong.  Neither side had proven their beliefs 100% and there is evidence for and against each side.


Carbon dioxide was proven to be a greenhouse gas back in the 1800's.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rapidly increasing due to man made carbon emissions.

The earth's temperature is climbing.

All of these facts are indisputable.
 
2014-01-06 02:27:39 PM  

HoustonNick: Global warming scientists explain why they BELIEVE the non-global warming scientists are wrong.  Neither side had proven their beliefs 100% and there is evidence for and against each side.


Both sides are bad, so burn Carbon.
 
2014-01-06 02:31:49 PM  

ShawnDoc: Both sides are bad, so burn Carbon.


Just wait until the sea levels start rising and rich people's shore front properties are in the crosshairs.  You're not going to ever hear another peep about global warming being a hoax.
 
2014-01-06 02:38:06 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Just wait until the sea levels start rising and rich people's shore front properties are in the crosshairs. You're not going to ever hear another peep about global warming being a hoax.


Pfft! The smart ones will have already sold their properties to the dumb ones.
 
2014-01-06 02:41:35 PM  
Haha, dumbasses. Keep confusing weather with climate and calling shiat you don't understand "pseudoscience" all you want.
 
2014-01-06 02:46:42 PM  

HoustonNick: Global warming scientists explain why they BELIEVE the non-global warming scientists are wrong.  Neither side had proven their beliefs 100% and there is evidence for and against each side.


OK. I will sit here and wait patiently for you to produce a single peer reviewed climatologist's study disputing that global climate change is happening.

One study. One. Let's see it.
 
2014-01-06 02:51:08 PM  

HoustonNick: Global warming scientists explain why they BELIEVE the non-global warming scientists are wrong.  Neither side had proven their beliefs 100% and there is evidence for and against each side.


Or, climatologists explain why science shows that the five assholes working for Exxon are incorrect and that available evidence shows that climate change is real.
 
2014-01-06 02:52:06 PM  

gilgigamesh: HoustonNick: Global warming scientists explain why they BELIEVE the non-global warming scientists are wrong.  Neither side had proven their beliefs 100% and there is evidence for and against each side.

OK. I will sit here and wait patiently for you to produce a single peer reviewed climatologist's study disputing that global climate change is happening.

One study. One. Let's see it.


Can't.  Everyone knows all the money for grants comes from big solar.
 
2014-01-06 03:03:38 PM  

HoustonNick: Global warming scientists explain why they BELIEVE the non-global warming scientists are wrong.  Neither side had proven their beliefs 100% and there is evidence for and against each side.


Can you prove to me, 100%, that you exist as a flesh and blood person and not a spam bot or a brain in a jar a la the "matrix"?

Nothing is proven 100%, but the weight of evidence is clearly in favor of man made climate change by a very large margin. One would have to be a fool to ignore it.
 
2014-01-06 03:15:10 PM  

Ambivalence: One would have to be a fool to ignore it.


Well there's your answer.
 
2014-01-06 03:17:45 PM  

HoustonNick: Global warming scientists explain why they BELIEVE the non-global warming scientists are wrong.  Neither side had proven their beliefs 100% and there is evidence for and against each side.


img.fark.net

yeah, it's pretty much 50-50 on global climate change.
 
2014-01-06 03:31:16 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: HoustonNick: Global warming scientists explain why they BELIEVE the non-global warming scientists are wrong.  Neither side had proven their beliefs 100% and there is evidence for and against each side.

Carbon dioxide was proven to be a greenhouse gas back in the 1800's.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rapidly increasing due to man made carbon emissions.

The earth's temperature is climbing.

All of these facts are indisputable.


This is the thing. It's lots harder to explain how global warming is NOT happening than to say it is.

The climate-change denialists are just ignorant people, really. They'd rather read a website than a textbook.
 
2014-01-06 03:32:28 PM  
Also, notice how the climate change denialists refuse to actually bother to learn basic climatology facts?

Well that might confuse things in their made-up minds! And look, here's another website confirming their ignorance!
 
2014-01-06 03:57:31 PM  

voltOhm: specifically the hilarious climate change expedition to document the "disappearing sea ice" - which ISN'T


What heroes saving the world look like:
i.dailymail.co.uk
i.dailymail.co.uk
i.dailymail.co.uk
i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2014-01-06 04:31:17 PM  
What is it about climate change that it's the one scientific theory that a certain portion of the population refuse to believe? It can't be based on personal interests, certainly.
 
2014-01-06 04:59:27 PM  
Okay, I'm getting a little tired of this. Can we just drop the joke and let the climate change deniers know that we're just pranking them. We know it doesn't really exist. We can't keep this up forever.
 
2014-01-06 05:21:38 PM  
Australia has had a record heat wave. Isnt that crazy? 120 degrees in December!
 
2014-01-06 05:41:06 PM  

Mugato: What is it about climate change that it's the one scientific theory that a certain portion of the population refuse to believe? It can't be based on personal interests, certainly.


It's based on the personal interests of Big Oil and Coal. They tap into the conservative notion that industry knows better than the government, and that liberals want to send us all into caves to eat organic tofu. They use conservatives' paranoia against them. The same way they always get conservatives to vote against their own best interests.
 
2014-01-06 05:42:21 PM  
grist.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-06 05:47:37 PM  
In before charts and graphs that all contradict each other
 
2014-01-06 05:48:14 PM  
Is this coldness particularly unusual? Doesn't it normally get cold like this up there in Canada and around the Great Lakes from time to time?
 
2014-01-06 05:49:24 PM  

fusillade762: [grist.files.wordpress.com image 607x819]


Regional activists like the UN.
 
2014-01-06 05:50:44 PM  

Mugato: What is it about climate change that it's the one scientific theory that a certain portion of the population refuse to believe? It can't be based on personal interests, certainly.


God made the world perfect, so the world can't possibly change by any actions of man.

/Except for the extinct animals.
//And the environmental pollution.
///And that hole in the ozone layer.
 
2014-01-06 06:03:06 PM  
If you don't know the mathematical concept of "averages" or the difference between "weather" and "climate" you should just STFU during any discussion of climate change.
 
2014-01-06 06:04:04 PM  

jigger: fusillade762: [grist.files.wordpress.com image 607x819]

Regional activists like the UN.


You are adorable. Let assume your tinfoil hat is not on too tight and the UN is in the bag for your climate change hoax:

UN Budget for 2012-2013: $5.4 billion

Oil company profits for 2012: $118.1 billion
 
2014-01-06 06:06:29 PM  

voltOhm: I think recent events supported by facts....specifically the hilarious climate change expedition to document the "disappearing sea ice" - which ISN'T. Kinda trumps the pseudo science.


Let me guess, you also don't believe in evolution? If you're going to be anti-science, why don't'cha go all out eh? Stop using your computer, or farking, both were created thanks to our understanding of science. Yet, you reject our understanding of climate change because it isn't convenient for you to do so.
 
2014-01-06 06:07:24 PM  
And when we have record highs during the summer, not a peep from these people.
 
2014-01-06 06:08:25 PM  

HoustonNick: Global warming scientists explain why they BELIEVE the non-global warming scientists are wrong.  Neither side had proven their beliefs 100% and there is evidence for and against each side.


www.optionated.com
 
2014-01-06 06:10:12 PM  

jigger: fusillade762: [grist.files.wordpress.com image 607x819]

Regional activists like the UN.


In 2013, the entire UN had an operating budget of $5.5 billion.  In 2012 Exxon Mobil had a net income of $45 billion.
 
2014-01-06 06:11:43 PM  

jigger: Is this coldness particularly unusual? Doesn't it normally get cold like this up there in Canada and around the Great Lakes from time to time?


Hey guy trust me when I tell you that this isn't going to go over as well as it did when you and your sisterfarking buddies chuckled about it on the derprepublic.
 
2014-01-06 06:13:48 PM  

thornhill: And when we have record highs during the summer, not a peep from these people.


Of course, it's summer.  What the fark do you expect?
 
2014-01-06 06:16:52 PM  

bbfreak: voltOhm: I think recent events supported by facts....specifically the hilarious climate change expedition to document the "disappearing sea ice" - which ISN'T. Kinda trumps the pseudo science.

Let me guess, you also don't believe in evolution? If you're going to be anti-science, why don't'cha go all out eh? Stop using your computer, or farking, both were created thanks to our understanding of science. Yet, you reject our understanding of climate change because it isn't convenient for you to do so.


That's what I was trying to say. People only question science when it's based on their own interests. Usually it's religion but in this case, since most people aren't oil executives their farking political party, which is even an even lamer reason than religion.

...which is not to say everyone should blindly accept everything in science. Even science doesn't do that.
 
2014-01-06 06:20:29 PM  

RexTalionis: Mugato: What is it about climate change that it's the one scientific theory that a certain portion of the population refuse to believe? It can't be based on personal interests, certainly.

God made the world perfect, so the world can't possibly change by any actions of man.

/Except for the extinct animals.
//And the environmental pollution.
///And that hole in the ozone layer.


But Man pissed God off and God flooded the world. Biblical proof that man-made climate change is possible. ;b
 
2014-01-06 06:20:38 PM  
That disruption to the polar vortex may have been triggered by a sudden stratospheric warming event

Icebergs in Havana?   No doubt someone will find a warming event to blame it on.
 
2014-01-06 06:23:43 PM  
Well, yeah.  Didn't anyone else see the documentary that explained all this?  I think it was directed by Roland Emmerich.

mutterfark: But Man pissed God off and God flooded the world. Biblical proof that man-made climate change is possible. ;b


The next time God destroys the world is supposed to be by fire.  Maybe He's just dragging it out so we have more time to repent.
 
2014-01-06 06:24:12 PM  

Stile4aly: jigger: fusillade762: [grist.files.wordpress.com image 607x819]

Regional activists like the UN.

In 2013, the entire UN had an operating budget of $5.5 billion.  In 2012 Exxon Mobil had a net income of $45 billion.


Please explain how you think Exxon Mobil's profits would be hurt if whatever you propose we do about ACC is done. You are right on the assumption that corporations are profit drive. You are wrong in your assumption that they don't play both sides of the field. When alternative energy becomes viable, companies like Exxon Mobil will be making their profits there.
 
2014-01-06 06:34:30 PM  
The polar ice cap is angry at our belligerence, and is creating a vortex to freeze us off the planet.

/it's working, my apartment heater can't keep up
 
2014-01-06 06:36:27 PM  

Mugato: bbfreak: voltOhm: I think recent events supported by facts....specifically the hilarious climate change expedition to document the "disappearing sea ice" - which ISN'T. Kinda trumps the pseudo science.

Let me guess, you also don't believe in evolution? If you're going to be anti-science, why don't'cha go all out eh? Stop using your computer, or farking, both were created thanks to our understanding of science. Yet, you reject our understanding of climate change because it isn't convenient for you to do so.

That's what I was trying to say. People only question science when it's based on their own interests. Usually it's religion but in this case, since most people aren't oil executives their farking political party, which is even an even lamer reason than religion.

...which is not to say everyone should blindly accept everything in science. Even science doesn't do that.


It's because if they accept man-made climate change as real, they know there will be calls to address the problem. The solution to the problem involves at minimum greatly increasing taxes and/or the cost of energy, and at maximum essentially ending civilized society as we have always understood it, because the world is not and may never be ready for alternative fuels to provide adequate energy to continue the lifestyle we've adjusted to.

That's why. People don't like those options very much.
 
2014-01-06 06:37:11 PM  
Why can't this change be due to just, you know, change? Can it be proven that the climate isn't just evolving on its own? Aren't we coming out of an ice age, thus making "warming" a given?
 
2014-01-06 06:41:29 PM  
scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net

I could make nuanced and well researched arguments, or I can take a pot shot and point out that Rockefeller saved the whales from extinction, Ford got out the horses and their propensity to eat our food and shiat in our streets, nitrogen fertilizers derived from natural gas feed stocks helped feed the billions, and plastics made from oil derivatives makes our life vastly different.

Unless you're going to let us build enough nukes, and reprocessing facilities, to generate the same number of joules required to replace all the oil and gas you advocate a regression. Otherwise we're going back to the old days, where we burn every scrap of biomass gatherable just to heat our homes.
 
2014-01-06 06:43:17 PM  
imageshack.us

Six days into the new year and it's already feeling like a repeat of the last one...

/Now, just need a few links to Birth Certificate controversy to drive it home
//At what point is it where they are no longer skeptics and reach full denier status?
 
2014-01-06 06:47:20 PM  

Bob The Nob: Why can't this change be due to just, you know, change? Can it be proven that the climate isn't just evolving on its own? Aren't we coming out of an ice age, thus making "warming" a given?


You can't get government funding asking questions like that. I read an article yesterday claiming global warming caused the freeze that it hitting North America.


/I will be 54 in May. Global warming is responsible for that as well.
//Would you buy a used carbon credit from Al Gore?
 
2014-01-06 06:48:52 PM  

pdieten: It's because if they accept man-made climate change as real, they know there will be calls to address the problem. The solution to the problem involves at minimum greatly increasing taxes and/or the cost of energy, and at maximum essentially ending civilized society as we have always understood it, because the world is not and may never be ready for alternative fuels to provide adequate energy to continue the lifestyle we've adjusted to.


I think it's more than that because those same people don't complain about our military spending when we invade some country for no reason. I can see oil people and business owners who are afraid that added environmental regulations might hurt their bottom line being global warming deniers but Joe 12-Pack is just toeing the party line and following whatever they hear on Rush Limbaugh;s show,
 
2014-01-06 06:49:07 PM  

Bob The Nob: Why can't this change be due to just, you know, change? Can it be proven that the climate isn't just evolving on its own? Aren't we coming out of an ice age, thus making "warming" a given?


The climate system isn't magic, It doesn't change for no reason. Sustained, multidecdal changes to the global mean surface temperature and ocean heat content are driven by changes in the planet's energy balance, through changing the amount of radiative forcing the system receives. We know what the other drivers of change are doing, and they're not the cause. We also know unequivocally that increasing GHGs imposes an increase in radiative forcing necessitating a warming to a higher equilibrium state.

Further, there are fingerprints unique to warming caused by increased GHGs vs. other kinds of drivers, such as stratospheric cooling.

That's why it can't be "just change". One, that's not a real answer, two we know what the other "suspects are doing", three we know what GHGs are doing, and four we see "fingerprints " of greenhouse warming.
 
2014-01-06 06:50:42 PM  

Lee451: You can't get government funding asking questions like that


Actually, you can and do. Which is why we have a good idea about what natural drivers of climate change have been doing over the years.

What is it about this topic that causes you to talk out of your ass like this? Just curious.
 
2014-01-06 06:54:34 PM  

Jon Snow: What is it about this topic that causes you to talk out of your ass like this? Just curious.


Because he knows the real truth: that fat-cat scientists, when they aren't out driving around in their new Ferraris, are making all of these "facts" up for trillions of dollars in taxpayer research monies - and every single one of them is a hypocrite because they exhale climate damaging carbon dioxide.

Isn't it obvious?
 
Displayed 50 of 214 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