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 (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-06 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."
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report