Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(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  
•       •       •

2742 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Jan 2014 at 5:45 PM (1 year 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
 
2014-01-07 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 14 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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report