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  
•       •       •

2732 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Jan 2014 at 5:45 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



214 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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?
 
2014-01-06 06:54:50 PM
add energy to an unstable oscillating system, and the extremes get more extreme. eventually something breaks. simple.
 
2014-01-06 06:55:16 PM
i936.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-06 06:57:31 PM

ZMugg: [i936.photobucket.com image 813x555]


That's a pretty damn effective GIF.
 
2014-01-06 06:57:37 PM

Jon Snow: 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.


Well, evolutionary change IS an answer. And do we *really* know your #2,3,4 or could it be a correlation / causation error?

I'm not saying it is, just saying that we knew cigarettes were good for us 50 years ago...
 
2014-01-06 06:59:39 PM
Since when does "lowest temperatures in 20 years" = historical anyway?
 
2014-01-06 07:01:41 PM

MarkEC: Please explain how you think Exxon Mobil's profits would be hurt if whatever you propose we do about ACC is done


A better question is why Exxon Mobil is funding anti-climate change propaganda.
 
2014-01-06 07:03:18 PM

Mugato: 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,


Nah. Defense spending is a known line in the budget. It keeps people employed. And people knowing their country is the toughest in the world makes them feel good about themselves. Defense spending is a show of strength. Alternative energy spending is a show of weakness. Whether you think this is logical or not is kind of beside the point. It's a mindset.
 
2014-01-06 07:03:39 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: ZMugg: [i936.photobucket.com image 813x555]

That's a pretty damn effective GIF.


Yes, yes it is.

Got it here (I think), would like to give credit, but can't remember who put it up first.
 
2014-01-06 07:04:30 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.


Having watched it happen from the late 80s, when global warming became a major public issue, to now, the answer is that the oil companies threw a shiatload of money at PR firms to bring the science into doubt.  It's the same thing tobacco companies did for decades, and the sad/amazing thing is that you can get a good chunk of the populace to buy that there's some question about the science simply by spending money on advertising and buying off the right pundits.
 
2014-01-06 07:04:44 PM

Bob The Nob: , just saying that we knew cigarettes were good for us 50 years ago...


Kind of a bad analogy. No one with a brain in their head needed the Surgeon General to tell them that breathing smoke directly into their lungs for 30 years might be bad for them.
 
2014-01-06 07:05:23 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?


Suppose you're right, and it's warming from causes other than CO2.

When summer rolls around, do you put on a parka?  Because emitting more CO2 is a lot like putting on a parka in the summertime under that scenario.
 
2014-01-06 07:05:56 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.


One?

Climate change denial seems to go hand in hand with evolution denial, as well as believing vaccinations cause autism, with a smattering of truthers and birthers thrown in.

//Personal experience with the denialists
 
2014-01-06 07:07:02 PM

Bob The Nob: I'm not saying it is, just saying that we knew cigarettes were good for us 50 years ago...


Ironically, the claim that cigarettes were not a cause of cancer perpetuated by the tobacco industry is the perfect analogy for the lies that climate change deniers are promoting today.

So at this point, I'm not actually sure whether you are very stupid, or astonishingly clever in a very subtle way...
 
2014-01-06 07:10:06 PM

fusillade762: 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


It's really more like $13 billion, but they tend to hide money rather effectively. But are you seriously claiming that the UN and all the governments involved in funding some sort of climate activism/outreach or another (don't forget their budgets that dwarf oil company profits) are "regional community organizers"?

It's not a hoax. The people involved in it (well, the people you see) really believe we're headed for a climate holocaust. But let's see where some of those obscene oil profits go, hmm?

BP was a founding member of United States Climate Action Partnership. It doesn't look like they're still a member, but Shell is.
Greenpeace doesn't shy away from millions in donations, even when they come drenched in oil death. http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/06/bp-greenpeace-big-oil - jackpot.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1121-04.htm
Exxon donated $100 million to Stanford to study global warming and the like. Surely no one that received this funding does any sort of activism with it.

The Sierra Club gets dirty oil money. So does the Nature Conservancy. So do all sorts of "regional community organizers" telling everyone about the coming climate apocalypse.

So some anti-alarmist think tanks get some money from some oil company (among many other sources) and suddenly it's a kochspiracy.
 
2014-01-06 07:11:37 PM
ZMugg: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: ZMugg: [i936.photobucket.com image 813x555]

That's a pretty damn effective GIF.

Yes, yes it is.

Got it here (I think), would like to give credit, but can't remember who put it up Boobiesed it up a few weeks ago, but I got it from SkepticalScience, so they are the the ones to credit.
 
2014-01-06 07:12:10 PM

ScaryBottles: 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.


Maybe I've been farking my sister too long. Can you translate that into Engrish?
 
2014-01-06 07:15:41 PM

czetie: Bob The Nob: I'm not saying it is, just saying that we knew cigarettes were good for us 50 years ago...

Ironically, the claim that cigarettes were not a cause of cancer perpetuated by the tobacco industry is the perfect analogy for the lies that climate change deniers are promoting today.

So at this point, I'm not actually sure whether you are very stupid, or astonishingly clever in a very subtle way...


Heheh ... Very true. :)

I'm not trying to deny GW, just trying to say "Have we stepped back from the data to get a fresh perpective on it"?

/ going with astonishingly clever
// and handsome
/// and cold
 
2014-01-06 07:16:36 PM

Mugato: Bob The Nob: , just saying that we knew cigarettes were good for us 50 years ago...

Kind of a bad analogy. No one with a brain in their head needed the Surgeon General to tell them that breathing smoke directly into their lungs for 30 years might be bad for them.


And, of course, there's the fact that it's just not true.  Does the (over a) century-old nickname "coffin nails" ring a bell?
 
2014-01-06 07:16:42 PM

jigger: ScaryBottles: 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.

Maybe I've been farking my sister too long. Can you translate that into Engrish?


Oh its obvious that you have been farking your sister too long but I think if you didn't get it the first time you aren't going to.
 
2014-01-06 07:18:45 PM

ScaryBottles: jigger: ScaryBottles: 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.

Maybe I've been farking my sister too long. Can you translate that into Engrish?

Oh its obvious that you have been farking your sister too long but I think if you didn't get it the first time you aren't going to.


Anybody else know what this booger eater is talking about?
 
2014-01-06 07:19:23 PM

RexTalionis: ZMugg: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: ZMugg: [i936.photobucket.com image 813x555]

That's a pretty damn effective GIF.

Yes, yes it is.

Got it here (I think), would like to give credit, but can't remember who put it up Boobiesed it up a few weeks ago, but I got it from SkepticalScience, so they are the the ones to credit.


Cool. I get to give credit to my source, and bonus boobies to boot.

My lucky day.
 
2014-01-06 07:19:48 PM
The Earth's climate fluctuates over time. Fact. How do I know this?

Ice ages motherfarkers.

The ONLY question is how much of an affect we have on it.
 
2014-01-06 07:26:19 PM

MarkEC: 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.


Then we'll be biatching about Big Solar.

Hey, did anybody notice that nuclear fusion is around the corner?
 
2014-01-06 07:26:28 PM
Climate change skeptics point to. . .

We point to The predictions by the congregation of Global warming claiming:
** Snow would be non existent and just a story young children would read about in books. (Reality: Most of the US tonight can look out their window and see the church was wrong.)

** Sea Ice would be non existent by 2013 (Reality: we're at record levels)

** Himalayan ice was retreating and would drown brown people (Reality:
The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows +Note that the church's reaction to this scientific fact Fears Grow of a Himalayan Tsunami as Glaciers Melt Also note that this fear mongering sky-is-falling bullshiat is AFTER global warming "scientists" found Himalayan glaciers are not melting

** Nonstop massive storms. (Reality: 2013 was Since 1950, there were only five other hurricane seasons less active than 2013

But keep preaching shaman
 
2014-01-06 07:27:08 PM
blame Jenny McCarthy
 
2014-01-06 07:28:53 PM

jigger: BP was a founding member of United States Climate Action Partnership. It doesn't look like they're still a member, but Shell is.
Greenpeace doesn't shy away from millions in donations, even when they come drenched in oil death. http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/06/bp-greenpeace-big-oil - jackpot.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1121-04.htm
Exxon donated $100 million to Stanford to study global warming and the like. Surely no one that received this funding does any sort of activism with it.


Did you even read the articles you linked?  The first article never mentioned Greenpeace receiving money from oil companies.  It was harping on Greenpeace's lack of commentary about organizations that have.

In the second, the money donated to Stanford was to fund research into greener fuel alternatives. It isn't for climatology research at all.  Here, let me give you a quickie to speed things along:

FTFA:
Exxon Mobil, whose pledge of $100 million makes it the biggest of the four contributors, issued a statement saying new techniques for producing energy while reducing emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases were "vital to meeting energy needs in the industrialized and developing world."
 
2014-01-06 07:28:57 PM
ShawnDoc [TotalFark]
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.

Both sides are bad, so vote democrats that lie about phony predictions and offer no real alternatives.
 
2014-01-06 07:29:18 PM
MarkEC:
You are wrong in your assumption that they don't play both sides of the field.

He never made that claim.  But, since you brought it up so suspiciously (i.e. without prompting and mis-attributing it to someone else), do you have any evidence that they fund climate science and not just climate denier groups?

When alternative energy becomes viable, companies like Exxon Mobil will be making their profits there.

And if they could, they would already be doing it.  But they're not.  Why  wouldn't Exxon be concerned about switching to a different market with different competitors where all of their long-established advantages (infrastructure, agreements, etc.) are no longer as useful?

It's like claiming that Blockbuster didn't have to worry about streaming video because they'd just switch to the streaming video market and make profits there.  Do you understand the idea that switching the entire focus of your business isn't that easy and actually costs quite a bit of money?  What big established company has ever said "Competition? That sounds like a great idea!"?

Please explain how you think Exxon Mobil's profits would be hurt if whatever you propose we do about ACC is done.

To reduce CO2 output, we need to reduce fossil fuel consumption.  If we reduce fossil fuel consumption, Exxon sells less fossil fuel.  If Exxon sells less fossil fuel, their profits decline.  This is all pretty straightforward (and obvious, though I don't mean to insult).  They invest a fraction of a percent of their profits into renewable energy.

Exxon reps have stated that they predict continued strong demand for oil and intend to keep that as the main focus of their business.  That is, they're assuming that fossil fuels will continue to produce the same percentage of the world's energy consumption for decades to come.  They're basing their business model on the assumption that we will not reduce fossil fuel consumption.  Do you see how what you're saying is contrary to reality?
 
2014-01-06 07:32:33 PM

OnlyM3: We point to The predictions by the congregation of Global warming claiming:


You could point to a lunatic fringe on any subject that says anything. If you want to ignore the scientific community for whatever your personal or financial reasons might be, go ahead but point to some random idiot statements and you look rather silly.
 
2014-01-06 07:34:26 PM

Bob The Nob: Well, evolutionary change IS an answer.


To what question? Change on multidecedal to centennial timescales? Not typically.

And do we *really* know your #2,3,4 or could it be a correlation / causation error?

Yes, we know. We have satellites pointed at the sun. We have detailed records of orbital forcing. We have isotopic geochemistry illustrating the fossil fuel source for the increase in GHGs. We have a fundamental understanding of the different responses that the vertical thermal structure of the atmosphere has to something like an increase in solar irradiance vs. an increase in CO2.

The confluence of events necessary to reach this conclusion in error would have to be so great, and involves science fundamental to stuff like national security (e.g. heat-seeking missiles) that the odds are infinitesimal, and you'd have a lot more to worry about than needlessly stabilizing emissions.

I'm not saying it is, just saying that we knew cigarettes were good for us 50 years ago...

No, "we" didn't. That impression was given to you by a dedicated disinformation campaign by the tobacco industry. 50 years ago the medical community was sufficiently convinced that it was issuing statements about tobacco causing cancer:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_and_Health:_Report_of_the_Adviso r y_Committee_to_the_Surgeon_General_of_the_United_States#Background

Not at all coincidentally, the same tactics, and even the same think tanks (and in some cases even the same individuals) are currently trying to sow disinformation about the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
 
2014-01-06 07:36:09 PM

0100010: jigger: BP was a founding member of United States Climate Action Partnership. It doesn't look like they're still a member, but Shell is.
Greenpeace doesn't shy away from millions in donations, even when they come drenched in oil death. http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/06/bp-greenpeace-big-oil - jackpot.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1121-04.htm
Exxon donated $100 million to Stanford to study global warming and the like. Surely no one that received this funding does any sort of activism with it.

Did you even read the articles you linked?  The first article never mentioned Greenpeace receiving money from oil companies.  It was harping on Greenpeace's lack of commentary about organizations that have.

In the second, the money donated to Stanford was to fund research into greener fuel alternatives. It isn't for climatology research at all.  Here, let me give you a quickie to speed things along:

FTFA:
Exxon Mobil, whose pledge of $100 million makes it the biggest of the four contributors, issued a statement saying new techniques for producing energy while reducing emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases were "vital to meeting energy needs in the industrialized and developing world."


Ah, I had a shiatload of tabs open. Greenpeace receives Rockefeller oil money once removed: http://philsreport.blogspot.com/2013/10/big-green-oil-money-wwf-found e d-and-run.html

So you don't consider funding alternative energy to be part of the equation? Exxon wants nothing more than to beat down anyone who would challenge the supremacy of fossil fuels in energy production. Right?
 
2014-01-06 07:39:22 PM
Mugato [TotalFark]


What is it about climate change that it's the one scientific theory that a certain portion of the population refuse to believe?

Tell you what. I'll give you a shot at convincing me. Don't show me predictions for the future that can *cough*will*cough* be wrong, show me the predictions those clowns got right.


Let me explain further. This kook -->
www.upl.co
Harold Camping
predicted the end of the world would be September 6, 1994. Fools believed him.
He then predicted TEOTW would be May 21, 2011. Fools believed him.
He then predicted TEOTW would be October 21, 2011. Fools believed him.


Global warming nuts have been making kooky predictions (end of snow, no sea ice by 2013, nonstop storms, food riots due to no crops growing, Kuwaiti Oil fires will bring nuclear winter, etc... etc... etc... None of them have come true, yet...

... fools keep believing them.  You Global warming nuts are a church. Nothing more, and possibly less.
 
2014-01-06 07:41:33 PM

jigger: 0100010: jigger: BP was a founding member of United States Climate Action Partnership. It doesn't look like they're still a member, but Shell is.
Greenpeace doesn't shy away from millions in donations, even when they come drenched in oil death. http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/06/bp-greenpeace-big-oil - jackpot.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1121-04.htm
Exxon donated $100 million to Stanford to study global warming and the like. Surely no one that received this funding does any sort of activism with it.

Did you even read the articles you linked?  The first article never mentioned Greenpeace receiving money from oil companies.  It was harping on Greenpeace's lack of commentary about organizations that have.

In the second, the money donated to Stanford was to fund research into greener fuel alternatives. It isn't for climatology research at all.  Here, let me give you a quickie to speed things along:

FTFA:
Exxon Mobil, whose pledge of $100 million makes it the biggest of the four contributors, issued a statement saying new techniques for producing energy while reducing emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases were "vital to meeting energy needs in the industrialized and developing world."

Ah, I had a shiatload of tabs open. Greenpeace receives Rockefeller oil money once removed: http://philsreport.blogspot.com/2013/10/big-green-oil-money-wwf-found e d-and-run.html

So you don't consider funding alternative energy to be part of the equation? Exxon wants nothing more than to beat down anyone who would challenge the supremacy of fossil fuels in energy production. Right?


And the UAE knows what happens when oil prices slip.  So they invest money in renewable research, because the guy that invents (and controls) the next technology that runs our transportation network will be a billionaire overnight.

I see no reason why, Exxon, BP, et. al. wouldn't do the same thing.  They know how much oil they produce, and they know it won't last forever, and they know that the first one to come up with some truly viable alternative that is cheaper to produce than a barrel of oil will become the world's biggest energy company.
 
2014-01-06 07:41:48 PM

voltOhm: specifically the hilarious climate change expedition to document the "disappearing sea ice" - which ISN'


The goal of the trip was actually to look at the Southern Ocean-surface (which is warming) carbon flux

i.imgur.com

 and to study the Antarctic continent proper (which is losing ice at a nonlinear rate)

i.imgur.com

 not sea ice.

Why would you lie about that?
 
2014-01-06 07:45:27 PM

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

Regional activists like the UN.


Jigger, please.
 
2014-01-06 07:45:43 PM
p.s.

Even the founder of the Church of Global Warming has recanted

This is akiin to L.Ron Hubbard admitting e-meter's & "clears" are bunk and travolta still playing with the g.d. things.
 
2014-01-06 07:46:36 PM

OnlyM3: I'll give you a shot at convincing me. Don't show me predictions for the future that can *cough*will*cough* be wrong, show me the predictions those clowns got right.


Increase in absorption of OLR in the H2O, CO2, CH4, etc. wavelengths.
Failure of OLR to increase proportionately with increased SSTs.
Increase in global ocean heat content.
Increase in tropopause height.
Cooling of the stratosphere.
Contraction of the upper atmosphere.
Expansion of the topics.
Amplification of Arctic warming relative to the lower latitudes.

I can go on and on.

Let's see how honest you are about being convincible.

What more do you need?
 
2014-01-06 07:50:26 PM

OnlyM3: You Global warming nuts are a church. Nothing more, and possibly less.


Those nuts called "scientists"?
 
2014-01-06 07:50:37 PM

jigger: Ah, I had a shiatload of tabs open. Greenpeace receives Rockefeller oil money once removed: http://philsreport.blogspot.com/2013/10/big-green-oil-money-wwf-found e d-and-run.html

So you don't consider funding alternative energy to be part of the equation? Exxon wants nothing more than to beat down anyone who would challenge the supremacy of fossil fuels in energy production. Right?


What equation?  Exxon wants nothing more than to make profits by the easiest means possible.  If it's easier to suppress than innovate, I woudn't be surprised if that's what it is doing.  All of which is beside the point.  I was calling out that both of the links you gave did nothing to support your claims.

Oh, and I'd like to point out that there's a bit of difference between receiving donations from a non-profit sponsored by a big-oil family and a corporation directly providing funds.  It might also help if you found a website that didn't have such an annoying way to highlight its text.
 
2014-01-06 07:50:42 PM

OnlyM3: p.s.

Even the founder of the Church of Global Warming has recanted

This is akiin to L.Ron Hubbard admitting e-meter's & "clears" are bunk and travolta still playing with the g.d. things.


Um no, but thanks for playing/trolling.
 
2014-01-06 07:53:04 PM

OnlyM3: p.s.

Even the founder of the Church of Global Warming has recanted

This is akiin to L.Ron Hubbard admitting e-meter's & "clears" are bunk and travolta still playing with the g.d. things.


Lovelock is not a climate scientist. He is only loosely associated with climate in any meaningful way due to Daisyworld, and his invention of the electron capture detector, neither of which have anything to do with the science underlying the detection and attribution of the present change to anthropogenic warming.

Joesph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius, Guy Callendar, James Hansen- any of these guys could credibly be called the father of climate change or whatever. Not Lovelock.

As an aside. When older scientists, even vary distinguished scientists, start making wild pronouncements outside of the scientific literature, especially outside of their direct area of expertise? There's a word for that. "Crank." And Lovelock was a crank back when he was talking about climate change in a way that was "alarmist", too.
 
2014-01-06 07:55:08 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.


Hi. How are you doing?

I'm just curious as to why you believe this. Can you elaborate on what has led you to this conclusion, in terms of sources, arguments, etc.?

Thanks!
 
2014-01-06 07:56:13 PM
In the last 6 months Toronto was hit with a hurricane like rainstorm, shattering all previous records and stranding a commuter train, and an ice storm of unheard of proportions causing a power outage which lasted two weeks in some places.

Canada is known for some wacky weather, but rarely to this degree. And two mass abnormalities within the span of half a year is unheard of.

The scary thing is that such destructive weather patterns will likely become the new normal.
 
2014-01-06 07:57:06 PM
Jon Snow

The goal of the trip was actually to look at the Southern Ocean-surface (which is warming)
Of course it is. My glasses of hot water have the same pesky problem of icing over.
 
2014-01-06 07:57:56 PM

OnlyM3: ** Snow would be non existent and just a story young children would read about in books. (Reality: Most of the US tonight can look out their window and see the church was wrong.)


Strawman.  This claim has never ever been made seriously by any climatologist and you should feel bad.

** Sea Ice would be non existent by 2013 (Reality: we're at record levels)

Cherry picking/citation needed.  Sea ice was not predicted to be entirely gone by 2013.Additionally, we're nowhere near record levels.

www.arctic.noaa.gov
www.arctic.noaa.gov

You're getting your talking points confused - the one you mean is that we've seen a record rebound in arctic sea ice from 2012 to 2013, as indicated by that graph up there.  That's a rebound from a record low.  And is still lower than any year but 6 since we started measuring sea ice.

** Himalayan ice was retreating and would drown brown people (Reality:
The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows +Note that the church's reaction to this scientific fact Fears Grow of a Himalayan Tsunami as Glaciers Melt Also note that this fear mongering sky-is-falling bullshiat is AFTER global warming "scientists" found Himalayan glaciers are not melting


If you read the article you yourself linked, you'd find that lack of melting is confined to the high-altitude glaciers, low-altitude ones are still melting, and ice loss is still a big deal all across the world.  But of course that requires grasping at least 6th-grade scientific concepts and nuance, which you can't.

** Nonstop massive storms. (Reality: 2013 was Since 1950, there were only five other hurricane seasons less active than 2013

The quiet hurricane season surprised a lot of people, but they have also been looking into the reasons for it.  Jon Snow is better-equipped to field this one, I think, being an actual climatologist, but I could be boring and observe things like global warming means weather extremes, of which no major hurricanes is certainly an extreme, or point out that one year does not a trend or pattern make.

Also, I'm sure you feel oh-so-clever talking about how it's a "church", but last I checked, real churches weren't too big on things like evidence, revision of tenets due to new evidence, or inquiry in general.  Sounds more like the denial camp to me.
 
2014-01-06 07:59:27 PM
Mugato [TotalFark]

>>>OnlyM3: You Global warming nuts are a church. Nothing more, and possibly less.

Those nuts called "scientists"?
Who are recanting their claims admitting they lied ... yes, those "scientists"
 
2014-01-06 07:59:28 PM

OnlyM3: Tell you what. I'll give you a shot at convincing me. Don't show me predictions for the future that can *cough*will*cough* be wrong, show me the predictions those clowns got right.


There have been a good number published studies over the past couple years that predict as the arctic warms, we will begin to experiencing larger effects from "polar amplification" and wider oscillation of the jet stream. This brings into effect a "blocking weather pattern," which depending on the time of the year will cause extreme cold snaps in the winter or extremely dry, hot droughts in the summer.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-warming-is-altering-weathe r- patterns-study-shows

If you haven't noticed, the Southwest part of the USA is just had the driest year on record, the Pacific NW has 80% less snowpack than in typical years, and the mid-west and east are currently undergoing one of the most extreme cold snaps ever experienced.

For quite a long time, even in *gasp,* Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, there has been predictions of widening extremes and weather as the overall climate warms. In many, many metrics we're starting to see many more outliers for records; plus those whole "100-year" storms that occur every couple years now.

The oceans are rising, weather extremes are far more common, and yep, the overall planet is warming.
 
2014-01-06 07:59:59 PM

pdieten: 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.


I'm curious as to why you think that this is what is necessary to ameliorate the problem. Why do you believe that something like a small but rising tax on carbon at the mine or wellhead, given the increasingly competitive costs of solar thermal and other renewables even in the absence of such policy, wouldn't be sufficient to trigger a shift in global energy infrastructure away from carbon intensive fuels?

I'm not saying it would be sufficient, mind you. But I've certainly heard arguments that it would be, and I'm curious as to why you think we must "end civilized society as we have always understood it".
 
2014-01-06 08:00:33 PM

Mugato: People only question science when it's based on their own interests.


I always found it amusing that people will second guess scientists when it comes to climate or evolution, but they have full, absolute, unconditional trust in medical science when they go to their doctor.
 
2014-01-06 08:01:43 PM
Mugato [TotalFark]
2014-01-06 07:32:33 PM


OnlyM3: We point to The predictions by the congregation of Global warming claiming:

You could point to a lunatic fringe on any subject that says anything. If you want to ignore the scientific community for whatever your personal or financial reasons might be, go ahead but point to some random idiot statements and you look rather silly.
You consider the father of the G.W. church a lunatic fringe? Interesting position for one of the believers to hold. You followers said algore's film was accurate. You're changing your tune now and calling him a lunatic fringe? Put that goal post back where you found it sir.
 
2014-01-06 08:04:08 PM
OnlyM3 [TotalFark]
2014-01-06 08:01:43 PM

Mugato [TotalFark]
2014-01-06 07:32:33 PM


OnlyM3: We point to The predictions by the congregation of Global warming claiming:

You could point to a lunatic fringe on any subject that says anything. If you want to ignore the scientific community for whatever your personal or financial reasons might be, go ahead but point to some random idiot statements and you look rather silly.

You consider the father of the G.W. church a lunatic fringe? Interesting position for one of the believers to hold. You followers said algore's film was accurate. You're changing your tune now and calling him a lunatic fringe? Put that goal post back where you found it sir.


.. damn preview button ...

I was adding ... Your claim about leaders in the g.w. community now being "lunatic fringe", is akin to Catholics claiming the Pope doesn't speak for Roman Catholics.
 
2014-01-06 08:09:16 PM
Based on the contents of this thread I find myself totally convinced and have changed my position on the matter.  Thanks for your persistence; it was the 10000000th thread that really finally did it.

I raise this glass to you. You know who you are.

Cheers!
 
2014-01-06 08:09:40 PM
i believe the earth is warming, but i don't care. how you like dem apples?
 
2014-01-06 08:13:17 PM

T.rex: how you like dem apples?


Grown and harvested in a much higher latitude.
 
2014-01-06 08:18:27 PM

OnlyM3: You consider the father of the G.W. church


Why do you keep repeating this? Do you actually believe it? Or do you know that it's bullshiat but think it's rhetorically effective to lie?
 
2014-01-06 08:18:27 PM
DemonEater
>>> OnlyM3: ** Snow would be non existent and just a story young children would read about
>>> in books. (Reality: Most of the US tonight can look out their window and see the church
>>> was wrong.)

Strawman. This claim has never ever been made seriously by any climatologist and you should feel bad.
You g.w. clowns really need to know your church leadership better. You're like those amusing polls done from time to time that show people don't know the contents of the Bible.

Allow me to enlighten you.
Dr David Viner
Mott MacDonald has appointed Dr David Viner as principal advisor for climate change. An internationally recognised expert, David brings with him 20 years of experience working in the area of climate change.

David worked for 17 years at the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit, where he developed a worldwide reputation working across all areas of climate change. He led UK public engagement on climate change adaptation and advised both the UK government and international agencies. During this time he was also director of the UEA's innovative climate change masters course.

In 2007 David took up a new position as Natural England's principal climate change specialist where he developed an adaptation framework and indicators for climate change. In 2008 David was appointed global director at The British Council where he developed a ground breaking cultural relations strategy and programme that was delivered through 250 offices in 109 countries. Working across UK government departments and in collaboration with international agencies, businesses and national governments, the programme was publicly endorsed by the UK government, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and other leading agencies.


Sounds like a serious climatologist type.

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent.


*Note that the year following this "serious climate scientist's" prediction there the area he went on to cite in his sky-is-falling rant had record snowfall.
Now.... lets see you apologize. I'll not be holding my breath.
 
2014-01-06 08:21:26 PM

MechaPyx: The Earth's climate fluctuates over time. Fact. How do I know this?
Ice ages motherfarkers.
The ONLY question is how much of an affect we have on it.


The Earth's climate fluctuates over eons. It doesn't change this fast.
 
2014-01-06 08:23:35 PM

falkone32: MarkEC:
You are wrong in your assumption that they don't play both sides of the field.

He never made that claim.  But, since you brought it up so suspiciously (i.e. without prompting and mis-attributing it to someone else), do you have any evidence that they fund climate science and not just climate denier groups?

When alternative energy becomes viable, companies like Exxon Mobil will be making their profits there.

And if they could, they would already be doing it.  But they're not.  Why  wouldn't Exxon be concerned about switching to a different market with different competitors where all of their long-established advantages (infrastructure, agreements, etc.) are no longer as useful?


Do you grasp what the word "viable" means?

It's like claiming that Blockbuster didn't have to worry about streaming video because they'd just switch to the streaming video market and make profits there.

If blockbuster had been investing their money into online streaming tech, Netflix would be known as Blockbuster streaming. Oil companies are, as someone pointed out above, investing in alternative energy research.

  Do you understand the idea that switching the entire focus of your business isn't that easy and actually costs quite a bit of money?  What big established company has ever said "Competition? That sounds like a great idea!"?

Please explain how you think Exxon Mobil's profits would be hurt if whatever you propose we do about ACC is done.

To reduce CO2 output, we need to reduce fossil fuel consumption.  If we reduce fossil fuel consumption, Exxon sells less fossil fuel.  If Exxon sells less fossil fuel, their profits decline.  This is all pretty straightforward (and obvious, though I don't mean to insult).  They invest a fraction of a percent of their profits into renewable energy.


Reduce fossil fuel consumption how? What would be the market reaction to that? Who would survive and reap the most profit from it?

Exxon reps have stated that they predict continued strong demand for oil and intend to keep that as the main focus of their business.  That is, they're assuming that fossil fuels will continue to produce the same percentage of the world's energy consumption for decades to come.  They're basing their business model on the assumption that we will not reduce fossil fuel consumption.  Do you see how what you're saying is contrary to reality?

Is that prediction based on some kind of conspiracy in your mind? Are you saying they are responsible for the continued strong demand they foresee? Going back to your Blockbuster analogy, wasn't Blockbuster's mistake not seeing out into the future far enough and branching out soon enough?
 
2014-01-06 08:23:56 PM

OnlyM3: DemonEater
>>> OnlyM3: ** Snow would be non existent and just a story young children would read about
>>> in books. (Reality: Most of the US tonight can look out their window and see the church
>>> was wrong.)

Strawman. This claim has never ever been made seriously by any climatologist and you should feel bad. You g.w. clowns really need to know your church leadership better. You're like those amusing polls done from time to time that show people don't know the contents of the Bible.

Allow me to enlighten you.
Dr David Viner
Mott MacDonald has appointed Dr David Viner as principal advisor for climate change. An internationally recognised expert, David brings with him 20 years of experience working in the area of climate change.

David worked for 17 years at the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit, where he developed a worldwide reputation working across all areas of climate change. He led UK public engagement on climate change adaptation and advised both the UK government and international agencies. During this time he was also director of the UEA's innovative climate change masters course.

In 2007 David took up a new position as Natural England's principal climate change specialist where he developed an adaptation framework and indicators for climate change. In 2008 David was appointed global director at The British Council where he developed a ground breaking cultural relations strategy and programme that was delivered through 250 offices in 109 countries. Working across UK government departments and in collaboration with international agencies, businesses and national governments, the programme was publicly endorsed by the UK government, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and other leading agencies.

Sounds like a serious climatologist type.

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years win ...



Let's say for sake of argument that everything you say is true.  Absolutely everything.

Now please come up with a good reason why the vast majority of climate scientists believe that global warming is real.
 
2014-01-06 08:24:19 PM

T.rex: i believe the earth is warming, but i don't care. how you like dem apples?


Screw dem apples.  Give me Republican apples any day.
 
2014-01-06 08:25:34 PM

OnlyM3: Global warming nuts have been making kooky predictions


Then stop listening to global warming nuts. They're not scientists. Most of them are just sensationalist media outlets trying to sell papers/clickbait. Nothing sells better than fear.

Pay attention to the science for now on.
 
2014-01-06 08:26:40 PM

Cyber_Junk: Now please come up with a good reason why the vast majority of climate scientists believe that global warming is real.


They're all on Algore's payroll!

/and Algore, as we all know, invented the entire theory of "global warming" off the top of his pointy little head, as a global scam to screw corporations out of their well-deserved profits
//TIWRAB
 
2014-01-06 08:34:41 PM
You quoted this in the context of the US:

OnlyM3: Reality: Most of the US tonight can look out their window and see the church was wrong.


OnlyM3: According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".


But in reality, the quote was about less frequent snowfall in the UK, with periodic episodes of heavy snow that catch people unprepared.

Why would you lie about the context like that?

Not to mention, this was an offhand comment made by one person outside of the scientific literature, not a consensus prediction of climate science.
 
2014-01-06 08:35:12 PM

Ishkur: Mugato: People only question science when it's based on their own interests.

I always found it amusing that people will second guess scientists when it comes to climate or evolution, but they have full, absolute, unconditional trust in medical science when they go to their doctor.


Well, considering the anti-vaxxers...
 
2014-01-06 08:37:01 PM
MrSteve007 [TotalFark]
2014-01-06 07:59:28 PM


OnlyM3: Tell you what. I'll give you a shot at convincing me. Don't show me predictions for the future that can *cough*will*cough* be wrong, show me the predictions those clowns got right.

There have been a good number published studies over the past couple years that predict as the arctic warms, we will begin to experiencing larger effects from "polar amplification" and wider oscillation of the jet stream. This brings into effect a "blocking weather pattern," which depending on the time of the year will cause extreme cold snaps in the winter or extremely dry, hot droughts in the summer.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-warming-is-altering-weathe r- patterns-study-shows

If you haven't noticed, the Southwest part of the USA is just had the driest year on record,

Gotcha, so let me see if I have this correct. Quoting over 2,000 record low temperatures last year is "cherry picking" and Weather (not climate), yet quoting a single dry season is hard science.
 
2014-01-06 08:39:24 PM

OnlyM3: Tell you what. I'll give you a shot at convincing me. Don't show me predictions for the future that can *cough*will*cough* be wrong, show me the predictions those clowns got right.


Jon Snow: Increase in absorption of OLR in the H2O, CO2, CH4, etc. wavelengths.
Failure of OLR to increase proportionately with increased SSTs.
Increase in global ocean heat content.
Increase in tropopause height.
Cooling of the stratosphere.
Contraction of the upper atmosphere.
Expansion of the topics.
Amplification of Arctic warming relative to the lower latitudes.

I can go on and on.

Let's see how honest you are about being convincible.

What more do you need?


Hello?
 
2014-01-06 08:39:40 PM
Jon Snow
2014-01-06 08:34:41 PM


You quoted this in the context of the US:

OnlyM3: Reality: Most of the US tonight can look out their window and see the church was wrong.

OnlyM3: According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

But in reality, the quote was about less frequent snowfall in the UK


Once again you move the goal post. You calm nobody ever made the claim, now you try to backpedal. Just like all g.w. faithful do when their claims turn out to be bunk.
 
2014-01-06 08:43:32 PM
OnlyM3: You Global warming nuts are a church. Nothing more, and possibly less.

People like you are terrible in my opinion, you belittle the efforts of scientists and contribute to the problem of so many not valuing science in today's society. The path forward for our species will be achieved thanks to science, but people like you have clouded that understanding and will only contribute to our ruin if we take you lot seriously.
 
2014-01-06 08:44:14 PM

OnlyM3: Once again you move the goal post.


Huh?

OnlyM3: You calm nobody ever made the claim


When exactly did I do that?

I said it was never a consensus prediction of the scientific community, I never said "nobody ever made the claim".

OnlyM3: now you try to backpedal.


How exactly am I backpedaling?
 
2014-01-06 08:47:45 PM

Jon Snow: OnlyM3: Once again you move the goal post.

Huh?

OnlyM3: You calm nobody ever made the claim

When exactly did I do that?

I said it was never a consensus prediction of the scientific community, I never said "nobody ever made the claim".

OnlyM3: now you try to backpedal.

How exactly am I backpedaling?


He's treating everyone who responds to him as the same person.
 
2014-01-06 08:48:23 PM

OnlyM3: Gotcha, so let me see if I have this correct. Quoting over 2,000 record low temperatures last year is "cherry picking" and Weather (not climate), yet quoting a single dry season is hard science.


You do seem to love taking quotes out of context. What I was attempting to do was use the most recent (and currently happening) extreme weather events, pointing out how they are developing a pattern of widening weather extremes - dryer seasons, hotter highs and even colder colds - pointing out how these were precisely predicted beforehand - and attribute them to a larger pattern of climate extremes from a warming arctic and what appears to be a more widely oscillating jet stream.

A single, or handful, of weather events don't make a climate. However long-trends in weather related measurements are related to the overall climate.

If we continue to see a warming arctic, current climate models predict that we're going to see more pronounced weather extremes in North America.
 
2014-01-06 08:55:04 PM

jigger: 0100010: jigger: BP was a founding member of United States Climate Action Partnership. It doesn't look like they're still a member, but Shell is.
Greenpeace doesn't shy away from millions in donations, even when they come drenched in oil death. http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/06/bp-greenpeace-big-oil - jackpot.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1121-04.htm
Exxon donated $100 million to Stanford to study global warming and the like. Surely no one that received this funding does any sort of activism with it.

Did you even read the articles you linked?  The first article never mentioned Greenpeace receiving money from oil companies.  It was harping on Greenpeace's lack of commentary about organizations that have.

In the second, the money donated to Stanford was to fund research into greener fuel alternatives. It isn't for climatology research at all.  Here, let me give you a quickie to speed things along:

FTFA:
Exxon Mobil, whose pledge of $100 million makes it the biggest of the four contributors, issued a statement saying new techniques for producing energy while reducing emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases were "vital to meeting energy needs in the industrialized and developing world."

Ah, I had a shiatload of tabs open. Greenpeace receives Rockefeller oil money once removed: http://philsreport.blogspot.com/2013/10/big-green-oil-money-wwf-found e d-and-run.html

So you don't consider funding alternative energy to be part of the equation? Exxon wants nothing more than to beat down anyone who would challenge the supremacy of fossil fuels in energy production. Right?


I tried to warn you.....
 
2014-01-06 08:56:05 PM

Fireproof: Well, considering the anti-vaxxers...


They're never the same people though. Anti-evolutionists tend to be religiously right fundies protecting the certainty of their faith, while AGW deniers tend to be libertarians and/or pro-industry big business capitalists or Republicans who just hate hippies. But anti-vaxxers tend to be left-wing followers of bullshiat eastern philosophies, crappy new age diets and alternative lifestyles (which means alternative medicine).

These three groups can overlap but usually don't. The one common thing they have is that they all accept everything science claims unconditionally EXCEPT when science claims something that threatens their way of life (then science is wrong, but only about this one thing). The fundies don't want evolution to disprove God, the libertarians don't want AGW to ruin profits, and the indigo children don't want vaccines to threaten the purity of their holy temple, or some bullshiat like that.
 
2014-01-06 08:57:56 PM
Anybody read Six Degrees by Mark Lynas? More extreme snaps are part of it. I think one of the other next signs is the drought/flood cycle, where the water falls so fast that it runs off, so it creates drought conditions even if your total rainfall is on track for the year.

/was a really good read. Haven't really seen much in the way of criticism of it . . .
 
2014-01-06 09:05:40 PM
You mean kind of like how global warming believers point to hurricanes as evidence?  Face it, both sides do it, only those who believe it continue to deny that they tend to pick and choose (and often not use science) what they look at to make their (weak) point.
 
2014-01-06 09:24:56 PM

06Wahoo: You mean kind of like how global warming believers point to hurricanes as evidence?


This is a pretty common misconception. The impact of a warming climate on tropical cyclogenesis is incredibly complex. All other things being equal, warmer sea surface temperatures should result in more intense TCs. But there are a lot of other factors to consider, like wind shear, which is also expected to increase in a warmer world. The tentative outlook for TCs is currently an increase in intensity of the strongest storms but a small decline in frequency.

But regardless TCs are not themselves "evidence" of a warmer world or the human cause of the warming. This is demonstrated through detection and attribution studies which rely on understanding the theoretical response of the climate system to different drivers, and our ability to detect a forced signal amid a large amount of unforced variability.
 
2014-01-06 09:27:13 PM

Ishkur: while AGW deniers tend to be libertarians and/or pro-industry big business capitalists or Republicans who just hate hippies. But anti-vaxxers tend to be left-wing followers of bullshiat eastern philosophies, crappy new age diets and alternative lifestyles (which means alternative medicine).


There is a fairly large chunk of the antivaxx movement that is of the libertarian, RON PAUL, FEMA death camps, 9/11 truther persuasion.

In fact, outside of the US, the antivaxx movement is pretty evenly distributed. I don't know if there has been a polling done within the US on that as well, however.
 
2014-01-06 09:32:14 PM

06Wahoo: You mean kind of like how global warming believers point to hurricanes as evidence?  Face it, both sides do it, only those who believe it continue to deny that they tend to pick and choose (and often not use science) what they look at to make their (weak) point.


People who believe in climate change (who aren't fearmongering out of ignorance or to generate hype) generally point to extreme weather events and say that they will be more likely to occur, not that they are evidence of climate change. 'Skeptics' tend to look for non-extreme events and regard them as evidence of a lack of warming, as well as using anecdotes to back of their believes rather than the models which predict more extreme weather used by 'believers'.
 
2014-01-06 09:33:48 PM

Jon Snow: Ishkur: while AGW deniers tend to be libertarians and/or pro-industry big business capitalists or Republicans who just hate hippies. But anti-vaxxers tend to be left-wing followers of bullshiat eastern philosophies, crappy new age diets and alternative lifestyles (which means alternative medicine).

There is a fairly large chunk of the antivaxx movement that is of the libertarian, RON PAUL, FEMA death camps, 9/11 truther persuasion.

In fact, outside of the US, the antivaxx movement is pretty evenly distributed. I don't know if there has been a polling done within the US on that as well, however.


Not sure on polling, but in my experience it is evenly spread between left wing new age alternative medicine types and right wing libertarian I won't let the government tell me what to put in my body types.
 
2014-01-06 09:37:41 PM
Jon Snow:

I just want to say I've found your comments highly informative, and I thank you for taking the time to post.

That being said, I'm pretty sure you're being trolled by OnlyM3. I'm sure you know that already, but it is a pretty masterful troll and I feel it needs to be acknowledged.
 
2014-01-06 09:49:30 PM

jigger: ScaryBottles: jigger: ScaryBottles: 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?


Anybody else know what this booger eater is talking about?


You DO know they say that eating your own boogers aids in strengthening your immune system....


just so you know
 
2014-01-06 10:05:54 PM
Go home, Time. You're drunk.
 
2014-01-06 10:11:58 PM

Jon Snow: There is a fairly large chunk of the antivaxx movement that is of the libertarian, RON PAUL, FEMA death camps, 9/11 truther persuasion.


That's why I said "tend to be". As in, not everybody.

But the Ron Paul types aren't anti-vaccines insomuch as they are anti-government. They don't distrust medical science as much as they distrust government-mandated application of medical science standards. They would be all about vaccines so long as it remains a personal choice to get them (to which they would then not get them, thus dooming the entire population to pandemics).
 
2014-01-06 10:24:38 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.


3/10 effective, but just no effort involved
 
2014-01-06 10:46:32 PM
I do believe that climate change is happening, I just don't care. The warming climate is going to cause some epic catastrophes, and I'd like to be there when with a bag of popcorn when the folks from the flooded ghetto loot the megachurch on baptize your Glock Sunday.

/Misanthrope
 
2014-01-06 10:47:55 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 is based on personal interests, mostly fear. The fear that they may have to change their wasteful lifestyles in any way, the fear that their generation just might be the one that will hasten the planet's demise for their children and their children's children, the fear that what the "hippies" have been warning them about since the 1960's just might be true, and all that they believe about the specialness of our species is a lie.

There's some guilt mixed in there as well... how many plant and animal species will become extinct due to climate change at their hands? Will they be responsible for... no more polar bears, tigers, seals, penguins, whales, other creatures? Will their lack of foresight change the very coastlines of this planet, rendering most of the major cities uninhabitable - unless you're a fish?

Yeah I think it's personal interests. They just don't want to be blamed by their progeny tomorrow for what they've done today.
 
2014-01-06 11:05:42 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?


Because at no time in history has this "change" occurred this rapidly. Normal climate change has happened before, but on the order of thousands, tens of thousands or even millions of years.
What's happening now can be traced directly back to the beginning of the industrial revolution, or about the time of the American civil war.

That was less than 170 years ago. Nothing evolves that quickly.
 
2014-01-06 11:32:48 PM

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


God made man and GAVE him the earth.  So man is free to do whatever they want with this gift God gave them.

Oh, and man is natural. So anything man does is also natural. That's why whenever there's an oil spill, it's no big deal since oil is natural.

And volcano's. A single volcano produces more pollution than man has produced during their entire existence. Volcano's are the real enemy.
 
2014-01-06 11:46:16 PM

OnlyM3: Of course it is. My glasses of hot water have the same pesky problem of icing over.


Hello retard.  Did you know that "warm" and "cool" and their verb forms are relative references to temperature?  That object A can be warmer than object B, and that both can still be frozen?

No.  Because you're a retard.
 
2014-01-06 11:51:23 PM
I've no idea what the truth is anymore, but since humans are horrible and there's far too many of them, I'm going to turn my heat on and leave the windows open all night to hurry this shiat along on the off-chance it's real.
 
2014-01-07 12:14:30 AM

Andric: OnlyM3: Of course it is. My glasses of hot water have the same pesky problem of icing over.

Hello retard.  Did you know that "warm" and "cool" and their verb forms are relative references to temperature?  That object A can be warmer than object B, and that both can still be frozen?

No.  Because you're a retard.


RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. - Saul Alinsky
 
2014-01-07 12:59:43 AM

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.


What climate change people never answer is the axis shift theory which means the earths axis shifts and man has zero control over it which is scarier than man causing if.

It also explains why Egypt and north Africa was almost completely covered in water, it also explains how the pyramids got built a lot easier. Natgeo had a good documentary about it.
 
2014-01-07 01:02:43 AM

whcrow: RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. - Saul Alinsky RAND PAUL


FTFY.
 
2014-01-07 01:12:43 AM

steamingpile: What climate change people never answer is the axis shift theory which means the earths axis shifts and man has zero control over it which is scarier than man causing if.


Are you talking about precession or the magnetic pole reversal? If the latter, there is zero evidence for significant climatic/biosphere changes associated with a reversal. If the former, Milankovitch, or orbital, forcing is extensively written about in climate science, especially paleoclimate. If the latter, I can give you any number of examples of how we know that's not at all what's driving the present change, from changes in global ocean heat content to changes in the vertical thermal structure of the atmosphere to the fact that orbital forcing operates on orders of magnitude too slow of a timescale and is currently in the wrong direction (i.e. would be driving us very slowly towards a new glacial maximum), to the fact that the total amount of radiative forcing associated with orbitally-driven climatic change is relatively small compared to human stores of fossil fuels, etc.

What exactly do you want to know?
 
2014-01-07 01:21:43 AM

steamingpile: What climate change people never answer is the axis shift theory which means the earths axis shifts and man has zero control over it which is scarier than man causing if.


It's been answered a bunch of times. The idea that Milankovitch cycles are causing global warming is one of the easiest to disprove, because they are cycles which are slow, on the order of thousands of years, not decades as the current warming is.
 
2014-01-07 01:43:56 AM

Jon Snow: What exactly do you want to know?


I get the distinct impression he doesn't want to know anything that doesn't confirm what he already believes. Sadly, some people don't give a shiat about learning... they just want to be right.
 
2014-01-07 05:21:54 AM
Instead of global cooling or global warming, call it global climate change.  Then no matter what the weather does, you can point and say "See?  I was right!"
 
2014-01-07 05:44:18 AM

rewind2846: 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?

Because at no time in history has this "change" occurred this rapidly. Normal climate change has happened before, but on the order of thousands, tens of thousands or even millions of years.
What's happening now can be traced directly back to the beginning of the industrial revolution, or about the time of the American civil war.

That was less than 170 years ago. Nothing evolves that quickly.


unless you are restricting `history` to under a few hundred years there is this.
  Older Peron. Throughout the period, global sea levels were 2.5 to 4 meters (8 to 13 feet) higher than the twentieth-century average. The higher sea level lasted for several centuries and eroded coastlines. Several locations around the world have "Older Peron terraces" along their coasts as a result. If this is in doubt, it`s a wiki and you can just change it if you disagree. Just do that if you think it`s wrong and I can never quote it again. It was followed by the Younger Peron, Abrolhos, and Rottnest transgressions. During the Younger Peron transgression (c. 4000-3400 BCE), sea level peaked at 3 meters above the twentieth-century level; during the Abrolhos (c. 2600-2100 BCE), 1.5 meters; and during the Rottnest (c. 1600-1000 BCE), 1 meter.

If it is true I`d call almost 5m of sea level rise in a couple of hundred years a precedent, wouldn`t you?

Also, on evolution, what about the peppered moth? That adapted to buildings being blackened by turning black and then after the clean air act of 1956 has turned back to mostly white again. To say *nothing* evolves that fast is simply wrong. Obviously larger slower breeding animals will adapt slower though.

You`ll have to reply to the OP in a more accurate way. Try less hyperbole. Provide some links.
 
2014-01-07 08:05:59 AM

Ishkur: These three groups can overlap but usually don't. The one common thing they have is that they all accept everything science claims unconditionally EXCEPT when science claims something that threatens their way of life (then science is wrong, but only about this one thing).


This is absolutely true, but you know what's truly hilarious about it? It applies to almost everybody. There are many people here on Fark who will cheerfully point and laugh at the climate change deniers, creationists, anti-vaxxers, etc. while exhorting the power of the scientific method -- but the moment we get a thread about how dangerous texting while driving is... well, those studies are flawed, and they are exceptional and the results don't apply to them, because god forbid they should have to wait a few minutes before updating their status.

(Heck, I probably have a blind spot of my own and don't even know it.)
 
2014-01-07 08:15:57 AM

whcrow: RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. - Saul Alinsky


Heh.  Goodbuddy Saul stole that from Thomas Jefferson:

"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
 
2014-01-07 08:34:06 AM
Wow, just wow.
It's patently obvious things are changing. Man's role is less obvious, but likely.

Either way, I don't care.  Will it destroy the world? No.
Will it cause massive Human death and suffering? Probably.

But the behavior demonstrated in this thread alone shows that there is no valid reason to save Humans, or to prevent their suffering.
You deserve it, and you're going to get it.
 
2014-01-07 09:05:37 AM

dready zim: unless you are restricting `history` to under a few hundred years there is this.
  Older Peron. Throughout the period, global sea levels were 2.5 to 4 meters (8 to 13 feet) higher than the twentieth-century average. The higher sea level lasted for several centuries and eroded coastlines. Several locations around the world have "Older Peron terraces" along their coasts as a result. If this is in doubt, it`s a wiki and you can just change it if you disagree. Just do that if you think it`s wrong and I can never quote it again. It was followed by the Younger Peron, Abrolhos, and Rottnest transgressions. During the Younger Peron transgression (c. 4000-3400 BCE), sea level peaked at 3 meters above the twentieth-century level; during the Abrolhos (c. 2600-2100 BCE), 1.5 meters; and during the Rottnest (c. 1600-1000 BCE), 1 meter.

If it is true I`d call almost 5m of sea level rise in a couple of hundred years a precedent, wouldn`t you?


It has been pointed out to you before that not only does the Wiki article you rely on for that claim not provide any references for its sea level claim, but that it is contradicted by Wiki itself on Holocene RSL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

Feel free to point out these supposed SLR episodes globally greater than present.

It shouldn't take someone editing a Wikipedia article for you to stop using something it has been pointed out is incorrect. Why keep doing it?
 
2014-01-07 09:08:05 AM

dready zim: Also, on evolution, what about the peppered moth? That adapted to buildings being blackened by turning black and then after the clean air act of 1956 has turned back to mostly white again. To say *nothing* evolves that fast is simply wrong. Obviously larger slower breeding animals will adapt slower though.


Wrong. They did not "turn" black (actually dark gray), they were always that way. They still are today. Within the species there has always been variation in color, from grey-white to dark grey (you did know there were two sub-species, right?). When humans farked everything up with their soot, the lighter ones became more conspicuous, and were eaten. The darker ones were left. When the clean air act was put into effect and the environment responded, the lighter ones (which were always there) simply became less conspicuous again, just as they were before. The natural variation in color continued as before.

Evolution denotes biological and physical change over time. This did not happen here. What you're looking for is the term "natural selection through predation", and not "genetic drift". Throughout this period the lighter colored moths continued to exist, although not in the wild, where they were consumed.
Real evolution without the type of environmental forces humans create takes time. The poster I responded to was talking about climate change, usually takes a long time, and not a cold snap.

Deny harder.
 
2014-01-07 09:40:51 AM

OnlyM3: p.s.

Even the founder of the Church of Global Warming has recanted



No he didn't
"It will not go back on climate change, he said, but will admit he had been 'extrapolating too far'."
 
2014-01-07 10:12:21 AM

whcrow: Andric: OnlyM3: Of course it is. My glasses of hot water have the same pesky problem of icing over.

Hello retard.  Did you know that "warm" and "cool" and their verb forms are relative references to temperature?  That object A can be warmer than object B, and that both can still be frozen?

No.  Because you're a retard.

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. - Saul Alinsky


That's nice.

Ridicule is only irrational if its object is not ridiculous.  If Mr. Retard found it infuriating, well, that's fine.  I find willful ignorance infuriating, so I guess that makes us even.
 
2014-01-07 10:18:37 AM
Global Warming...nothing more than a bogus justification for the elites to exact more control over the citizens.
 
2014-01-07 10:27:49 AM

MilesTeg: Global Warming...nothing more than a bogus justification for the elites to exact more control over the citizens.


Or, you know, nothing like that at all, but rather the cumulative result of man-made changes to atmospheric chemistry, maybe.
 
2014-01-07 10:31:53 AM

Ishkur: I always found it amusing that people will second guess scientists when it comes to climate or evolution, but they have full, absolute, unconditional trust in medical science when they go to their doctor.


That does not strike me as true. Do you have any citations?

My experience isn't so much that people trust their doctor as they feel they have no better alternative and assume that, whatever the case may be, their doctor isn't going to hurt them -- even if s/he doesn't make them better. Many more pursue nonsense like homeopathy or herbal remedies. The whole experience of going in to the doctor's office when sick often comes across as voodoo. Yeah, take a temperature and throw antibiotics at the problem and hope it cures things. Oh, what's that, antibiotic resistant super strains because it is too expensive to look under a microscope at a saliva or blood sample and figure out what is really ailing somebody? Well shiat.

Then you have all the NIMBY people. If they trust the science so much, why aren't they OK living a few miles from a nuclear power plant?
 
2014-01-07 10:36:34 AM

MilesTeg: Global Warming...nothing more than a bogus justification for the elites to exact more control over the citizens.


Global Warming denial - nothing more than a bogus justification for big oil to continue to take our money and make us smile while doing it.

/Yay, bald assertions are easy!
//Elites?  I missed where the climate scientists were living in skyscrapers looking down on the unwashed masses. Oil executives, on the other hand, live in shanty towns.
 
2014-01-07 10:43:29 AM

Feepit: If they trust the science so much, why aren't they OK living a few miles from a nuclear power plant?


It's perfectly possible to trust the science while distrusting the engineering, the construction, or the managers cutting corners on training, staffing, safety inspections, maintenance, or regulatory compliance.

In other words, it's perfectly rational to say "I believe this nuclear power plant would be perfectly safe if it operates exactly as designed; but I don't trust that it will operate exactly as designed".

Yes, I'm sure that there are people who distrust nuclear power plants even when operating as designed; but not everyone who distrusts the safety of nuclear power is a crackpot or selectively rational.
 
2014-01-07 10:56:23 AM

czetie: Feepit: If they trust the science so much, why aren't they OK living a few miles from a nuclear power plant?

It's perfectly possible to trust the science while distrusting the engineering, the construction, or the managers cutting corners on training, staffing, safety inspections, maintenance, or regulatory compliance.

In other words, it's perfectly rational to say "I believe this nuclear power plant would be perfectly safe if it operates exactly as designed; but I don't trust that it will operate exactly as designed".

Yes, I'm sure that there are people who distrust nuclear power plants even when operating as designed; but not everyone who distrusts the safety of nuclear power is a crackpot or selectively rational.


I would be surprised if the average person can distinguish between science and engineering.

Anyway, my point was that it isn't so much an issue of trust as people pursuing the path of least resistance. Lots of people hate to fly, but they do it anyway because it is the only practical and budget-friendly way to travel long distances or overseas. Aside from as a source of entertainment-controversy and an excuse to throw out an opinion, most people don't care about climate change and whether it is caused by humans because they can't see how it is having an immediate impact on their lives.
 
2014-01-07 11:02:07 AM

Feepit: Aside from as a source of entertainment-controversy and an excuse to throw out an opinion, most people don't care about climate change and whether it is caused by humans because they can't see how it is having an immediate impact on their lives.


I don't think that's quite capturing the nuance of the situation. I think plenty of people care, but view it as a long term problem, whereas they view the economy/jobs as a near term problem. If you ask people to rank problems based on seriousness if nothing is done about them in the long run, climate gets close to the top. But if you ask them what is concerning them right this second, it's down at the bottom.

http://climatepublicopinion.stanford.edu/sample-page/research/opinio n- polls-underestimate-americans-concern-about-the-environment-2/

So you're definitely correct that it's a problem viewed as distant, but I think it still is something people worry about long term.
 
2014-01-07 11:22:10 AM
Science is about questioning everything.  I don't understand why questioning climate change is such an issue.

Especially when even scientists are quite aware of the 'problems of scale' - being that a lab experiment doesn't have 100% of the variables that a world experiment does.

Anyone ever read that book were scientists were deemed untrustworthy, and if you were a scientist you could be put in prison?  With the overabundance of 'because science', and the poor job scientists have been doing (butter bad!  No Good!  Peanuts Bad!  No, Wait!), I'm getting the feeling we're heading in that direction.
 
2014-01-07 11:30:13 AM
the sky is falling!!!

send your money to algore, quick!

freakin hilarious.
 
2014-01-07 11:35:05 AM

Jon Snow: So you're definitely correct that it's a problem viewed as distant, but I think it still is something people worry about long term.


Does that poll show a breakdown between responses that referenced the environment and responses that referenced global warming? The linked pdf brought up an error page. In any event, the two responses being lumped together strikes me as misleading. They aren't the same, even if one can influence the other. There are likely people who are opposed to pollution, deforestation, and so forth who might not necessarily care about global warming. They might have been people who were thinking about keeping national parks clean for their grandchildren. Moreover, there are ways to destroy the environment that don't have any primary or secondary influences on temperature.
 
2014-01-07 11:38:13 AM

Havokmon: Science is about questioning everything.  I don't understand why questioning climate change is such an issue.


So you think denialists are just 'questioning' climate change? Interesting.
 
2014-01-07 11:42:26 AM

Feepit: I would be surprised if the average person can distinguish between science and engineering.


The average person may not be able to distinguish between science and engineering, but they can distinguish between profits and funding, and most ecological disasters are a result of one or both (or lack thereof). That doesn't mean they don't trust the science, it means they don't trust other people to do what the science says properly.
 
2014-01-07 11:45:06 AM
Havokmon:

Hey! I'll try to field these. Please take my responses in the cordial manner they're intended. I will refer to some behaviors, and I want to make it clear that I am not accusing you of doing them, but using them to illustrate examples that hopefully will help our conversation.

Science is about questioning everything.

Not exactly. It's about rigorously testing things. It's not about refusing to acknowledge when evidence becomes overwhelming, jamming one's fingers in one's ears, and continuing to "just ask questions". That's what creationists and other antiscience groups do to muddy the waters and confuse bystanders.

 I don't understand why questioning climate change is such an issue.

Questioning is fine. What questions are you asking? And if/when your questions are answered, are you going to move on, or pretend like you were never given the answer? It's the latter that people have a problem with, for (I hope) understandable reasons.

Especially when even scientists are quite aware of the 'problems of scale' - being that a lab experiment doesn't have 100% of the variables that a world experiment does.

A model need not be a 100% replication of reality in order to be useful. This is something understood throughout all of science, and doesn't seem to be a problem for people in almost every single aspect of science. Except when it comes to something like climate change or evolution.

Even grossly oversimplified 0-dimensional energy balance models can tell us useful things about climate. We don't need to explicitly model every aspect of a system to answer general questions about its mean state.

Anyone ever read that book were scientists were deemed untrustworthy, and if you were a scientist you could be put in prison?  With the overabundance of 'because science', and the poor job scientists have been doing (butter bad!  No Good!  Peanuts Bad!  No, Wait!), I'm getting the feeling we're heading in that direction.

You seem to be conflating the media's poor job of communicating medical findings with science doing something wrong. A lot of the "A is good for you, no it's bad for you" arises from grossly oversimplified reporting that generalizes some aspect of a given food (perhaps its level of fat) to an overall "good/bad" label that the scientific study in question does not address. Then, when another study examines another aspect of that food (the relative health effects of trans vs. unsaturated fats in margarine vs. butter), the media reports a contrary narrative, even though the actual scientific studies are not themselves in conflict at all.

Hope that helps!
 
2014-01-07 11:46:01 AM

JohnnyC: Havokmon: Science is about questioning everything.  I don't understand why questioning climate change is such an issue.

So you think denialists are just 'questioning' climate change? Interesting.


If you consider anyone who questions climate change a 'denialist', then yes.
 
2014-01-07 11:49:37 AM

Havokmon: Science is about questioning everything. I don't understand why questioning climate change is such an issue.


Science is not about questioning everything -- it is about investigative inquiry. There's a difference.

Just asking questions is useless and doesn't resolve anything. You must ask deliberate, constructive questions, that are falsifiable and keyed toward a greater understanding of the field, concept, or dataset. This is something I think a lot of people just don't understand about skepticism. It's not about having doubts, it's about having doubts with conditions. If you don't specify what it is you're questioning and how and why and given what parameters, then you're not asking questions, you're just being annoying.
 
2014-01-07 11:51:21 AM

Havokmon: If you consider anyone who questions climate change a 'denialist', then yes.


Are you using "question" in the sense that you have actual questions to ask, want to hear answers, and then will shape your views according to that receipt of information?

Or "question" in the sense of endlessly repeating that we just don't know enough, even though we do?
 
2014-01-07 11:55:30 AM

Jon Snow: Havokmon:

You seem to be conflating the media's poor job of communicating medical findings with science doing something wrong.


This.  But not what you think. There isn't such a problem with 'science' being incorrect, it's the 'scientists' doing things incorrectly (ie, not accounting for all variables) that I'm concerned about.  My examples, I believe, are not that of the media oversimplifying, but scientists (not science) providing incorrect/inappropriate information that is acted upon in a manner that negatively affects us 'because science'.

In the greater scheme of things, I haven no problem with reducing emissions, but let's do away with the "our world will turn into an iceball/fireball" media scare tactics and concentrate on something actually useful.
 
2014-01-07 12:00:43 PM

Havokmon: Science is about questioning everything.


No, it isn't. It's about testing, evaluating and refining. Physicists don't "question" Special Relativity, because it's well-established, and there is no evidence to contradict current thinking on the subject - every test has confirmed its validity. That's not to say there are no detractors, however their ideas are, to put it mildly, scientifically dubious. The difference with climate change/global warming is there is a huge moneyed interest in promoting the status quo, i.e., fossil fuel consumption. These don't lend any scientific credibility to the deniers' arguments, just volume.
 
2014-01-07 12:01:52 PM

Havokmon: it's the 'scientists' doing things incorrectly (ie, not accounting for all variables) that I'm concerned about.  My examples, I believe, are not that of the media oversimplifying, but scientists (not science) providing incorrect/inappropriate information that is acted upon in a manner that negatively affects us 'because science'.


When, specifically, is this happening?

And please keep in mind the difference between scientists, medical doctors (many of whom have incredibly little training in actual science after their initial undergrad courses), and policymakers.

Havokmon: let's do away with the "our world will turn into an iceball/fireball" media scare tactics and concentrate on something actually useful.


Again, your complaint is with the media, not with the science. So why are you framing your problem as something to do with the science?
 
2014-01-07 12:48:31 PM
we don't know what will happen in the next decade, but we know what will happen in 100 yrs.  because we are scientists.
 
2014-01-07 12:49:29 PM

MechaPyx: The Earth's climate fluctuates over time. Fact. How do I know this?

Ice ages motherfarkers.

The ONLY question is how much of an affect we have on it.


Exactly. The cute little chart posted earlier (deniers see it as short downward lines, GW proponents see the longer upslope) ignores this. Sure the temp might have gone up over the last 40 years... But that's just the last stage of climbing out of a multi-thousand year dip in temps that caused the last ice age.

That's why I maintain that BOTH sides lie with statistics.
 
2014-01-07 12:59:25 PM

colon_pow: we don't know what will happen in the next decade, but we know what will happen in 100 yrs.  because we are scientists.

boundary value problems are not subject to the same complexities as initial value problems.

Let me blow your mind.

I can't tell you what the next roll, or even the next ten rolls, of a fair six-sided die will be. But I can tell you that over 1,000 throws, the mean value will converge on 3.5.

Further, I can tell you that if you swap out the fair six-sided die for a fair eight-sided die what the impact on the mean will be, the impact on the range, the impact on the statistics of all manner of "extreme events", etc.

Describing changes to the mean state of a system due to changes in its boundary values is not sorcery.
 
2014-01-07 01:06:35 PM
fredklein: MechaPyx: The Earth's climate fluctuates over time. Fact. How do I know this?

Ice ages motherfarkers.

The ONLY question is how much of an affect we have on it.

Exactly. The cute little chart posted earlier (deniers see it as short downward lines, GW proponents see the longer upslope) ignores this. Sure the temp might have gone up over the last 40 years... But that's just the last stage of climbing out of a multi-thousand year dip in temps that caused the last ice age.

That's why I maintain that BOTH sides lie with statistics.


No, not at all.

The Last Glacial Maximum reached its maximum extent around 20 thousand years ago. Orbital variations pace such glaciation cycling. Orbital forcing (along with significant feedbacks from ice-albedo and the carbon cycle (i.e. GHGs)) melted us out of the LGM, but that warming reached its maximum around 9-6 thousand years ago (there is significant latitudinal variation as to the timing of the max). For the past several thousand years, we were gradually cooling before anthropogenic warming reversed this.

i.imgur.com

Here are the data, feel free to plot them yourself:  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198/suppl/DC1

Out of curiosity,  MechaPyx and  fredklein, what made you believe that we were still warming out of the LGM?
 
2014-01-07 01:10:20 PM

whcrow: Alinsky


*** DRINK! ***
 
2014-01-07 03:20:11 PM
Jon snow- your chart proves me right. On the left side, temps were cool, then they warmed up, then they cooled again.... And now they are warming again. It... It's like a big cycle or something, and we're on the upslope.
 
2014-01-07 03:24:26 PM

fredklein: Jon snow- your chart proves me right. On the left side, temps were cool, then they warmed up, then they cooled again.... And now they are warming again. It... It's like a big cycle or something, and we're on the upslope.


The natural trend in the absence of our GHGs emissions would be to continue the cooling.

How are you not understanding this?

The "cycle" in the absence of humans would be to slowly cool until we were in a new glacial maximum, over thousands of years. And then tens of thousands of years later warm out of it, and cool again, etc. Our GHG emissions have reversed the cyclical nature of orbitally-paced glaciation that has operated for well over 800,000 years.
 
2014-01-07 03:30:23 PM

fredklein: On the left side, temps were cool, then they warmed up, then they cooled again.... And now they are warming again. It... It's like a big cycle or something, and we're on the upslope.


It normally takes the cycle thousands of years to effect these kinds of changes. Now it's happening in less than a hundred.
 
2014-01-07 03:45:50 PM

Jon Snow: fredklein: Jon snow- your chart proves me right. On the left side, temps were cool, then they warmed up, then they cooled again.... And now they are warming again. It... It's like a big cycle or something, and we're on the upslope.

The natural trend in the absence of our GHGs emissions would be to continue the cooling.

How are you not understanding this?

The "cycle" in the absence of humans would be to slowly cool until we were in a new glacial maximum, over thousands of years. And then tens of thousands of years later warm out of it, and cool again, etc. Our GHG emissions have reversed the cyclical nature of orbitally-paced glaciation that has operated for well over 800,000 years.


Down, up, down... Down??

Makes no sense.

And your own chart disproves your 'tens of thousands of years' cycle- the left slope goes from -.2 to +.2 in, what, 2000 years?? Why was it perfectly fine when it warmed up that fast back then, but totally 'oh, noes!!!' When it's warming up fast now?

And, why does your chart only go that far back? Is there no data further back? Or might it show that some cycles are quicker than others, and that this current warming is not unprecedented?
 
2014-01-07 03:50:32 PM

Ishkur: fredklein: On the left side, temps were cool, then they warmed up, then they cooled again.... And now they are warming again. It... It's like a big cycle or something, and we're on the upslope.

It normally takes the cycle thousands of years to effect these kinds of changes. Now it's happening in less than a hundred.


We've only had accurate, first-hand temperature measurements for... How long? About a hundred years or so? I'm pretty sure we didn't have satellite imagery of the polar ice pack from 2000 years ago. Or tens of thousands of weather stations providing temperature measurements throughout the world.
 
2014-01-07 04:00:08 PM

fredklein: Down, up, down... Down??

Makes no sense.


And your own chart disproves your 'tens of thousands of years' cycle- 

That's because it's zoomed in on the recent past and doesn't show the full range of the behavior of the cycle:

i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-07 04:04:53 PM

fredklein: Ishkur: fredklein: On the left side, temps were cool, then they warmed up, then they cooled again.... And now they are warming again. It... It's like a big cycle or something, and we're on the upslope.

It normally takes the cycle thousands of years to effect these kinds of changes. Now it's happening in less than a hundred.

We've only had accurate, first-hand temperature measurements for... How long? About a hundred years or so? I'm pretty sure we didn't have satellite imagery of the polar ice pack from 2000 years ago. Or tens of thousands of weather stations providing temperature measurements throughout the world.


If you think we know so little about the behavior of paleoclimate, why were you convinced that the present warming was merely a continuation of the melting out of the LGM just a few comments ago? You don't get to have it both ways.

If you want to bring up paleoclimatic changes as a challenge to our knowledge that humans are warming the planet, you don't just get to ignore what the data show when they refute your claim.

We know what drives glaciation cycling. It's not magic. We know what the climate was doing in the absence of anthropogenic warming. We know what increasing GHGs does to globally averaged surface temperature.

More importantly, we know that warming from increasing GHGs has distinct fingerprints from other kinds of warming, like orbital forcing. And we can observe those fingerprints, like increased absorption of radiation in GHG wavelengths, stratospheric cooling, etc. taking place.
 
2014-01-07 04:09:33 PM

fredklein: We've only had accurate, first-hand temperature measurements for


Why does this matter? Almost nothing in a vast number of scientific disciplines is due to direct observation. In fact, very few things are. Science relies on induction and inference far more than observation: It takes a look at the evidence and then builds models for how that evidence came to be.

The evidence shows that changes in the world's climate is a gradual process (by human scales), so what has been happening over the past 100 years is unprecedented.

I'm interested in why you are so skeptical about this specific scientific discipline and not, say, evolution, cosmology, plate tectonics, geophysics or even history. None of them rely on direct observation to assert their theories yet productive conclusions are still developed that you probably agree with without much resistance. What makes climate change so special?

fredklein: I'm pretty sure we didn't have satellite imagery of the polar ice pack from 2000 years ago. Or tens of thousands of weather stations providing temperature measurements throughout the world.


And no detective ever sees the murder firsthand yet cases still get solved. How? He takes a look at the evidence and figures out whodunit. That's what most scientists do. Your concerns are unwarranted.
 
2014-01-07 04:17:22 PM
Oblig:

scienceblogs.com
 
2014-01-07 04:45:09 PM

Jon Snow: fredklein: Down, up, down... Down??

Makes no sense.

And your own chart disproves your 'tens of thousands of years' cycle- 

That's because it's zoomed in on the recent past and doesn't show the full range of the behavior of the cycle:


I see lots of (relatively) slow, jagged drops, followed by sudden rises. Unlike this last time which was a slow, jagged drop... Followed by a sudden rise.

Oh noes- it's the same pattern as the last 800,000 years! Everyone panic!!
 
2014-01-07 04:51:12 PM

fredklein: I see lots of (relatively) slow, jagged drops, followed by sudden rises. Unlike this last time which was a slow, jagged drop... Followed by a sudden rise.

Oh noes- it's the same pattern as the last 800,000 years! Everyone panic!!


I can't tell if you're trying to troll me at this point or not.

The baseline climate prior to human interference was already at the "sudden rise" in the 800,000 year chart. Look again, and pay attention to the x axis. It goes from the past (800,000 years before present) towards the present from left to right.

The next step of the "cycle" would be a gradual cooling, which is what we were seeing before we let loose with a geologically rapid carbon pulse.
 
2014-01-07 04:51:16 PM

fredklein: Oh noes- it's the same pattern as the last 800,000 years!


You understand the last time C02 levels were at 400 ppm, human beings didn't exist, right?
 
2014-01-07 04:59:21 PM
Jon snow- I didn't say we knew nothing, just that we now have much more accurate data for the last hundred years or so. And (coincidentally) that time period is the same time period we seem to notice the change. Funny that.
 
2014-01-07 05:03:55 PM

fredklein: Funny that.


Right!

Because the fact that we put thermometers around the globe 150 years ago is what is causing radiation to be increasingly absorbed at GHG wavelengths, the stratosphere to cool, and all of the other things that distinguish the warming we're seeing due to our emissions of GHGs from other potential drivers of warming.

That makes perfect sense and is not at all an intellectually bankrupt failure to confront the physics of radiative forcing.
 
2014-01-07 05:24:06 PM

Ishkur: fredklein: Oh noes- it's the same pattern as the last 800,000 years!

You understand the last time C02 levels were at 400 ppm, human beings didn't exist, right?


You do understand that the original chart didn't have that dotted line shooting up at the end, right, and ended well under 300, right?

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg
 
2014-01-07 05:30:01 PM

fredklein: You do understand that the original chart didn't have that dotted line shooting up at the end, right, and ended well under 300, right?

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg


Right. That's the preindustrial data.

The data before human emissions of GHGs.

You know that's old, trapped air taken from ice cores, right, and not a snapshot of present conditions?
 
2014-01-07 05:31:14 PM

fredklein: You do understand that the original chart didn't have that dotted line shooting up at the end, right, and ended well under 300, right?


uhh.... no

(and would it hurt you guys to hyperlink your links? Takes two seconds)
 
2014-01-07 06:20:31 PM

Jon Snow: fredklein: You do understand that the original chart didn't have that dotted line shooting up at the end, right, and ended well under 300, right?

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg

Right. That's the preindustrial data.

The data before human emissions of GHGs.

You know that's old, trapped air taken from ice cores, right, and not a snapshot of present conditions?


Jon, I admire your patience enormously. I really do. It exceeds my own by orders of magnitude. But I think there comes a point where you have to accept that fredklein is either being willfully ignorant, or he really is just that stupid. However, the rest of us thank you for trying, as well as for all the work you do.
 
2014-01-07 06:27:10 PM

Ishkur: fredklein: You do understand that the original chart didn't have that dotted line shooting up at the end, right, and ended well under 300, right?

uhh.... no

(and would it hurt you guys to hyperlink your links? Takes two seconds)


Well, yeah, if you wanna take your CO2 readings on an active volcano.

And I didn't hyperlink because I was on my phone.
 
2014-01-07 06:29:34 PM

Jon Snow: fredklein: You do understand that the original chart didn't have that dotted line shooting up at the end, right, and ended well under 300, right?

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg

Right. That's the preindustrial data.

The data before human emissions of GHGs.


Um, No.

That chart goes up to 1950, which is long after the Industrial Revolution.
 
2014-01-07 06:31:49 PM

Jon Snow: fredklein: Funny that.

Right!

Because the fact that we put thermometers around the globe 150 years ago is what is causing radiation to be increasingly absorbed at GHG wavelengths, the stratosphere to cool, and all of the other things that distinguish the warming we're seeing due to our emissions of GHGs from other potential drivers of warming.

That makes perfect sense and is not at all an intellectually bankrupt failure to confront the physics of radiative forcing.


Strawman. I never said that placing thermometers did ANYTHING,... except give us more accurate data to look at. And that, maybe, if we had more accurate data from thousands of years ago, instead of third-hand extrapolations, we would have a clearer picture of what conditions were back then.
 
2014-01-07 06:42:34 PM
Wait now he's back to geologic records being unreliable again. ROFLMAO

/relurk
 
2014-01-07 06:45:39 PM

fredklein: Well, yeah, if you wanna take your CO2 readings on an active volcano.


The issue isn't where they take it, the issue is the discrepancy between what it says now and what it says 50 years ago in the same location.

Why isn't any of this getting through to you? And you dodged my previous inquiry: Why do you have this impenetrable wall of skepticism toward just climate change but no other form of deductive science (like evolution or cosmology)?
 
2014-01-07 06:54:37 PM

fredklein: Well, yeah, if you wanna take your CO2 readings on an active volcano.


Seriously?

Seriously?

http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/

Because CO2 is noncondensing in our planetary temperature range, it is relatively well-mixed throughout the atmosphere. It's near 400ppm whether you measure it at Mauna Loa, or Cape Grim, or with satellites:

http://www.esa-ghg-cci.org/?q=node/115
 
2014-01-07 07:57:21 PM

Ishkur: The issue isn't where they take it, the issue is the discrepancy between what it says now and what it says 50 years ago in the same location.

...which could be related to where the measurements were taken. Since they were taken on a volcano, isn't it possible that the state of the volcano might affect any readings taken on it, regardless of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere elsewhere?

The 'For Dummies' version: maybe the active volcano they took the CO2 readings on changed and started producing more CO2?


Why isn't any of this getting through to you? And you dodged my previous inquiry: Why do you have this impenetrable wall of skepticism toward just climate change but no other form of deductive science (like evolution or cosmology)?

Oh, I'm not skeptical of climate change. No doubt it's changing. None whatsoever. I'm just skeptical of the 'data' both side produce to back their claims.

 
2014-01-07 07:59:45 PM

Jon Snow: fredklein: Well, yeah, if you wanna take your CO2 readings on an active volcano.

Seriously?

Seriously?

http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/

Because CO2 is noncondensing in our planetary temperature range, it is relatively well-mixed throughout the atmosphere. It's near 400ppm whether you measure it at Mauna Loa, or Cape Grim, or with satellites:

http://www.esa-ghg-cci.org/?q=node/115


That's a better cite.

Wasn't that simple?
 
2014-01-07 08:16:18 PM

fredklein: Oh, I'm not skeptical of climate change. No doubt it's changing. None whatsoever. I'm just skeptical of the 'data' both side produce to back their claims.


ah yes, both sides are bad, even though you've only shown irrational skepticism toward one side.
 
2014-01-07 08:21:16 PM

fredklein: That's a better cite.


No, in fact, it's not. The data at Mauna Loa have gone through far more validation and analysis than the data anywhere else in the world.

The "Keeling Curve" is one of the, if not the, most iconic graphs in all of Earth science, and the data are fine.

The idea that the Mauna Loa data are somehow bad because Mauna Loa is a volcano is a pure fiction dreamed up by climate denialists.

fredklein: I'm just skeptical of the 'data' both side produce to back their claims.


"Both sides" don't make the same kinds of claims and rely on the same kinds of data. The scientific community is saying one thing. Partisan hacks and bloggers are saying another. The scientific community has multiple lines of independent evidence, ranging from observations to paleoclimate to theory and state of the art modeling, and the denialists have excel graphs they crayoned together in their bedrooms.

If you want evidence that the current warming is anthropogenic, it's there in spades. Maybe you don't know where to look, and that's absolutely fine. No one can be in expert in everything. But it's there.

The change in the vertical thermal structure of the atmosphere, i.e. warming at the surface and the troposphere, then a raising of the tropopause and cooling of the stratosphere, is a fingerprint unique to enhanced greenhouse warming, distinct from warming caused by increases in solar irradiance, or orbital forcing, or ocean-atmosphere couplings like ENSO or the PDO. And we can definitively attribute the increase in GHGs to human burning of fossil fuels via isotopic geochemistry, as well as mass balance methods.

These and many other reasons are why an overwhelming scientific consensus exists.

I am not asking you to take any of this on faith, I am happy to post (or if the thread gets closed beforehand, email) links to primary scientific sources demonstrating all of this. What I am asking you to do is this-

Be honest about the motivation for your skepticism. There's no shame in having personal biases, only shame in letting them win out in the long run. I fully admit to having reservations about nuclear power that were based on misinformation I absorbed through partisan sources rather than the scientific literature. I was wrong, but the real problem would have been if I refused to acknowledge that I was wrong and stuck to the misinformation because it better comported with my worldview.

Be honest about the level of evidence necessary to convince you. If there is really nothing anyone can do to change your view, you're not being skeptical. At all.

If there is indeed evidence that can persuade you, be honest about it when it is presented to you. Don't move the goalposts and demand things you previously had no issue with, just to be able to say your expectations hadn't been met.

Be discriminating about the sources presented to you. Ensure that the information is coming from the primary scientific literature, preferably in relevant, respected, peer-reviewed physical science journals that have editors familiar with the topics- journals like Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Climate of the Past, Journal of Geophysical Research, Climatic Change, Geology, Quaternary Science Reviews, etc. Nature, Science, and PNAS are typically good as well, but tend to publish higher profile and thus at times contentious research. If not from journals directly, then from relevant organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, or earth science institutions like NASA, NOAA, USGS, etc. or Scripps, Woods Hole, etc. Or universities with respected climate-focused departments (but avoid press releases).

This advice applies no matter what the scientific question is.

The reason why honest skeptics about climate change are so rare is that the ones who are honest tend not to stay skeptics for long because the evidence is overwhelming and not all that hard to find. And many posing as "skeptics" simply won't accept the reality regardless of how much evidence they're shown.
 
2014-01-07 08:24:57 PM

Ishkur: fredklein: Oh, I'm not skeptical of climate change. No doubt it's changing. None whatsoever. I'm just skeptical of the 'data' both side produce to back their claims.

ah yes, both sides are bad, even though you've only shown irrational skepticism toward one side.


What evidence have the 'deniers' posted? Show me some, and I'll show skepticism towards it, too.
 
2014-01-07 08:50:11 PM

fredklein: Ishkur: fredklein: Oh, I'm not skeptical of climate change. No doubt it's changing. None whatsoever. I'm just skeptical of the 'data' both side produce to back their claims.

ah yes, both sides are bad, even though you've only shown irrational skepticism toward one side.

What evidence have the 'deniers' posted? Show me some, and I'll show skepticism towards it, too.


Well, there's your problem. Since you seem to not grasp concepts readily: there isn't anything in the way of evidence supporting the various claims they have made. From 'it's the sun', to 'Mars is warming', to 'it's cooling!'. But through out this thread you've made claims based solely on your own personal incredulity, claimed 'both sides are bad', all while 'just asking questions', and ignoring or dismissing the scientific data posted in response to your inquiries.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that you don't really wish to learn anything about the subject, and are falsely presenting yourself as willing to discuss the subject honestly. Just an FYI, we already have multiple people filling this role. Find a new shtick.
 
2014-01-07 09:01:42 PM

fredklein: What evidence have the 'deniers' posted? Show me some, and I'll show skepticism towards it, too.


You've been posting most of it. Why aren't you skeptical toward it yourself?

There's been all sorts of it in this thread. OnlyM3 and jigger have shoveled the brunt of it.
 
2014-01-07 11:04:48 PM

Zafler: fredklein: Ishkur: fredklein: Oh, I'm not skeptical of climate change. No doubt it's changing. None whatsoever. I'm just skeptical of the 'data' both side produce to back their claims.

ah yes, both sides are bad, even though you've only shown irrational skepticism toward one side.

What evidence have the 'deniers' posted? Show me some, and I'll show skepticism towards it, too.

Well, there's your problem. Since you seem to not grasp concepts readily: there isn't anything in the way of evidence supporting the various claims they have made.


Sorry.

What "evidence" have the 'deniers posted?

Is that better?

Again, point me to some, And I'll ridicule it, too.

a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/8088599/88584973#c88584973" target="_blank">Ishkur: You've been posting most of it. Why aren't you skeptical toward it yourself?

I haven't presented any evidence, one way or the other. I've just questioned the evidence I have seen others post.
 
2014-01-07 11:10:21 PM

Ishkur: fredklein: What evidence have the 'deniers' posted? Show me some, and I'll show skepticism towards it, too.

You've been posting most of it. Why aren't you skeptical toward it yourself?

There's been all sorts of it in this thread. OnlyM3 and jigger have shoveled the brunt of it.


Only3m has posted some out-of-context quotes.

Jigger has posted at least one link that did not say what he said it said. ( I'm not gonna bother checking the other links.)

There. I'm skeptical. No- I'm outright doubting of what those people say.

All better now?
 
2014-01-07 11:50:26 PM

fredklein: I've just questioned the evidence


You haven't asked any questions, all you've done this whole time is make excuses for why the evidence can't possibly be true.

And the real sad part is despite all our attempts, over and ove, to get you to read, understand, and accept the facts of what's going on, you are incapable of learning anything and your mind is already made up and you'll come back and bleat the same tired nonsense in tomorrow's thread.

fredklein: All better now?


Reply to THEM about that, not me! I don't give a shiat if you doubt their claims. Making a big, grand spectacle of it doesn't get us anywhere.
 
2014-01-08 04:55:29 AM

Havokmon: Science is about questioning everything.


No. Scientist are skeptical until they have solid evidence staring them in the face. You for example don't question gravity on a regular basis I hope? Our understanding of gravity isn't perfect, but in general nobody believes that the oceans will suddenly float into space or that the moon will suddenly fall down on our heads. If so called climate change "skeptics", or GMO "skeptics", or vaccine "skeptics", want to be taken seriously they need evidence to back it up. That is what science is about, its about questioning towards the goal of having evidence that proves without a shadow of a doubt that this or that is happening/etc.

Havokmon: I don't understand why questioning climate change is such an issue.


Which brings me to the problem with climate change "skeptics", they don't want to look at the evidence. They are completely set in their opinions about climate change. Indeed, there are so many people in the world and especially the United States that live in their own little world with their own facts. Which brings me to why that is dangerous, and why we can't tolerate it by giving both sides equal credibility. Our civilization as we know it, is built upon the fruits of our understanding of science.

The way forward for our species is by investing in science and continuing our understanding of the world, our solar system, and beyond. We know this because your computer, Fark.com, the internet and most everything you own was created thanks to our understanding of science. Science, biatches, it made your life better in thousands of ways. You benefit from it every single day you are alive.

So when we give those so called "skeptics" credibility, that weakens the credibility in science in general. Vaccines again, are probably one of the best examples. They only work if we as a whole believes that it works, and get vaccinated. Otherwise it all falls to pieces.

Climate change is established with hard evidence, and while we may not understand it completely. What is clear is that those so called "skeptics" have stopped us from preparing from the effects of man made climate change. They are dooming countless millions of fellow human beings in the future to untold suffering. Yet, despite that there will still be people who don't believe in climate change.
 
Displayed 214 of 214 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report