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.

(Think Progress)   The one consolation to be gleaned from reading the AAAS' alarming report on climate change is that it is, ultimately, a self-correcting scenario   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 214
    More: Scary, action on climate change, learned society, climate change, western U.S., Southwest Airlines  
•       •       •

6271 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Mar 2014 at 6:06 PM (31 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
 
2014-03-20 04:28:09 PM  
Dr. James McCarthy, Harvard oceanography professor and former AAAS President, said "The public has been misinformed by a colossal disinformation campaign."

Several of whom we will hear from in this thread.
 
2014-03-20 04:30:46 PM  
"The risk concept - the risk of inaction - this is something that really hasn't been emphasized. And if you just think back 20 years or 10 years - what we imagined twenty years ago about loss of Artic sea ice - it was not thought to be anything that would be of concern in this century. Ten years later, roughly 2000, we knew that we were on a trajectory that couldn't be anticipated. Ten years ago that same era it was not thought that Greenland would be losing ice dramatically in the next few decades, but within a few years we realized that was wrong." "

Get your pantyhose on, kids, it's gonna get choppy here from here out.
 
2014-03-20 04:33:21 PM  
This wouldn't be that controversial if it wasn't political.

Take the politics out of science and maybe people will take it a bit more seriously.
 
2014-03-20 04:33:50 PM  
BOOORRRING!!!

It's over.  You're not getting the money.

/You tried, you failed, move on
 
2014-03-20 04:37:27 PM  

cman: This wouldn't be that controversial if it wasn't political.

Take the politics out of science and maybe people will take it a bit more seriously.


The politicians are the ones that put the politics in it, not the scientists.
 
2014-03-20 04:40:50 PM  

Dinki: cman: This wouldn't be that controversial if it wasn't political.

Take the politics out of science and maybe people will take it a bit more seriously.

The politicians are the ones that put the politics in it, not the scientists.


Take a look at the article. Take a look at its logo.

Climate Progress

This is a highly partisan site. They are not scientists. They don't care about science. They care only about the left/right war.
 
2014-03-20 04:47:18 PM  

cman: Take a look at the article. Take a look at its logo.

Climate Progress


Are you saying the American Association for the Advancement of Science is a partisan political organization? Because if you are, you would be wrong.
 
2014-03-20 04:48:07 PM  

cman: Dinki: cman: This wouldn't be that controversial if it wasn't political.

Take the politics out of science and maybe people will take it a bit more seriously.

The politicians are the ones that put the politics in it, not the scientists.

Take a look at the article. Take a look at its logo.

Climate Progress

This is a highly partisan site. They are not scientists. They don't care about science. They care only about the left/right war.


Hey, look. It's the AAAS website.

Is that better? Or does it have cooties, now that thinkprogress.org linked to it?
 
2014-03-20 04:54:03 PM  
Get China and India on board with reforms and the lions share of carbon "taxes" and I'll think about it.

Interesting that the efforts taken since about 1970 to curb real pollutants was so hugely successful that they ran out of things to regulate and tax. So they want to tax one of the most common elements on earth and are now referring to it as "toxic".

Brilliant
 
2014-03-20 04:54:48 PM  

phaseolus: Hey, look. It's the AAAS website.

Is that better? Or does it have cooties, now that thinkprogress.org linked to it?


Academics in this country are only "liberal" in the sense that "conseratives" and "libertarians" have abandoned academic thought.
 
2014-03-20 04:56:11 PM  

smells_like_meat: Interesting that the efforts taken since about 1970 to curb real pollutants was so hugely successful that they ran out of things to regulate and tax. So they want to tax one of the most common elements on earth and are now referring to it as "toxic".


Yes the whole Global climate change thing is just a scam to find more ways to tax people. And 97% of the climate scientists out there are in on it for some reason.
 
2014-03-20 04:59:06 PM  

smells_like_meat: So they want to tax one of the most common elements on earth and are now referring to it as "toxic".


Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. Please go breathe nothing but pure hydrogen until you become smarter.
 
2014-03-20 05:00:31 PM  

phaseolus: cman: Dinki: cman: This wouldn't be that controversial if it wasn't political.

Take the politics out of science and maybe people will take it a bit more seriously.

The politicians are the ones that put the politics in it, not the scientists.

Take a look at the article. Take a look at its logo.

Climate Progress

This is a highly partisan site. They are not scientists. They don't care about science. They care only about the left/right war.

Hey, look. It's the AAAS website.

Is that better? Or does it have cooties, now that thinkprogress.org linked to it?


That does not negate my premise that politics is intertwined with climate science. As long as there are people who use political slogans to push science then there will be partisan clashes.
 
2014-03-20 05:06:26 PM  

cman: That does not negate my premise that politics is intertwined with climate science. As long as there are people who use political slogans to push science then there will be partisan clashes.


Guys, it's important to understand that in the debate between scientific fact and self-interested corporations, both sides are bad. So vote for untrammeled release of greenhouse gases.
 
2014-03-20 05:07:07 PM  

cman: phaseolus: cman: Dinki: cman: This wouldn't be that controversial if it wasn't political.

Take the politics out of science and maybe people will take it a bit more seriously.

The politicians are the ones that put the politics in it, not the scientists.

Take a look at the article. Take a look at its logo.

Climate Progress

This is a highly partisan site. They are not scientists. They don't care about science. They care only about the left/right war.

Hey, look. It's the AAAS website.

Is that better? Or does it have cooties, now that thinkprogress.org linked to it?

That does not negate my premise that politics is intertwined with climate science. As long as there are people who use political slogans to push science then there will be partisan clashes.


Oh for fark's sake. Politicians have gotten politics into the fluoridated water "controversy" too. Does that mean the "fluoride are invadin' our bodily fluids" types have a real argument?

The science is the science, regardless if some politicians try to stick their nose in it.
 
2014-03-20 05:13:11 PM  

Cagey B: cman: That does not negate my premise that politics is intertwined with climate science. As long as there are people who use political slogans to push science then there will be partisan clashes.

Guys, it's important to understand that in the debate between scientific fact and self-interested corporations, both sides are bad. So vote for untrammeled release of greenhouse gases.


I am not saying anything close to both sides are bad.

verbal_jizm: cman: phaseolus: cman: Dinki: cman: This wouldn't be that controversial if it wasn't political.

Take the politics out of science and maybe people will take it a bit more seriously.

The politicians are the ones that put the politics in it, not the scientists.

Take a look at the article. Take a look at its logo.

Climate Progress

This is a highly partisan site. They are not scientists. They don't care about science. They care only about the left/right war.

Hey, look. It's the AAAS website.

Is that better? Or does it have cooties, now that thinkprogress.org linked to it?

That does not negate my premise that politics is intertwined with climate science. As long as there are people who use political slogans to push science then there will be partisan clashes.

Oh for fark's sake. Politicians have gotten politics into the fluoridated water "controversy" too. Does that mean the "fluoride are invadin' our bodily fluids" types have a real argument?

The science is the science, regardless if some politicians try to stick their nose in it.


Umm, I don't understand how you got any of that from what I said. All I said is that the reason why climate change science isn't being taken as serious as it should be is due to political fighting. That has nothing to do with pushing stupid conspiracy theories or other pseudo-science nonsense. Partisanship is what is making it impossible to tackle climate change.
 
2014-03-20 05:16:08 PM  
I don't care if right-wingers don't think we should take action on climate change, that's their right to believe short-term profits are more important than long-term consequences if that's how they want to think. But to deny it even exists? That's just childish ignorance at play.

There's no worldwide conspiracy among climatologists, you know. If you do believe that, there's probably a good reason you aren't good at science.
 
2014-03-20 05:16:29 PM  

cman: I am not saying anything close to both sides are bad.


You're citing "partisanship" in general as the reason we can't address climate change. So tell me, which side is at fault, if it's not a "both sides are bad" situation? Because you seem to be dancing around something.
 
2014-03-20 05:17:38 PM  

verbal_jizm: cman: phaseolus: cman: Dinki: cman: This wouldn't be that controversial if it wasn't political.

Take the politics out of science and maybe people will take it a bit more seriously.

The politicians are the ones that put the politics in it, not the scientists.

Take a look at the article. Take a look at its logo.

Climate Progress

This is a highly partisan site. They are not scientists. They don't care about science. They care only about the left/right war.

Hey, look. It's the AAAS website.

Is that better? Or does it have cooties, now that thinkprogress.org linked to it?

That does not negate my premise that politics is intertwined with climate science. As long as there are people who use political slogans to push science then there will be partisan clashes.

Oh for fark's sake. Politicians have gotten politics into the fluoridated water "controversy" too. Does that mean the "fluoride are invadin' our bodily fluids" types have a real argument?

The science is the science, regardless if some politicians try to stick their nose in it.


BUT AL GORE WAS WRONG THERE'S STILL ICE IN THE ARCTIC AND HE'S MAKING MILLIONS
 
2014-03-20 05:19:25 PM  

Cagey B: cman: I am not saying anything close to both sides are bad.

You're citing "partisanship" in general as the reason we can't address climate change. So tell me, which side is at fault, if it's not a "both sides are bad" situation? Because you seem to be dancing around something.


Oh ffs...

Listen, every time you get something involved in the political process it becomes a free-for-all brawl. No matter what the subject it happens. You know this just as well as everyone else does.
 
2014-03-20 05:22:47 PM  

Cagey B: cman: I am not saying anything close to both sides are bad.

You're citing "partisanship" in general as the reason we can't address climate change. So tell me, which side is at fault, if it's not a "both sides are bad" situation? Because you seem to be dancing around something.


Step 1) Politicize the science of climate change
Step 2) Complain it's politicized, and we can't really know what's real. Guess we have to maintain the status quo
Step 3) Profit

(actual steps taken by big oil)
 
2014-03-20 05:29:02 PM  

cman: Listen, every time you get something involved in the political process it becomes a free-for-all brawl. No matter what the subject it happens. You know this just as well as everyone else does.


So "both sides are bad" then. Okay.
 
2014-03-20 05:31:56 PM  
"Self-correcting" as in it will kill us all and things will eventually return to normal?


impaler: Cagey B: cman: I am not saying anything close to both sides are bad.

You're citing "partisanship" in general as the reason we can't address climate change. So tell me, which side is at fault, if it's not a "both sides are bad" situation? Because you seem to be dancing around something.

Step 1) Politicize the science of climate change
Step 2) Complain it's politicized, and we can't really know what's real. Guess we have to maintain the status quo
Step 3) Profit

(actual steps taken by big oil)


It's also the same strategy tobacco companies used when evidence mounted that cigarettes caused cancer. Fund some pet studies to muddy the waters as long as possible in order to continue extracting maximum profit.
 
2014-03-20 05:33:10 PM  
I bet these climate alarmists fly in jets, drive cars, and have air conditioning.
 
2014-03-20 05:34:06 PM  
We will do nothing about this and our lives will be dramatically worse. But don't worry, there won't be any jobs to work when the shiat really hits the fan so your biggest concern will be starvation. Welcome to the future.
 
2014-03-20 05:36:42 PM  

impaler: Cagey B: cman: I am not saying anything close to both sides are bad.

You're citing "partisanship" in general as the reason we can't address climate change. So tell me, which side is at fault, if it's not a "both sides are bad" situation? Because you seem to be dancing around something.

Step 1) Politicize the science of climate change
Step 2) Complain it's politicized, and we can't really know what's real. Guess we have to maintain the status quo
Step 3) Profit

(actual steps taken by big oil)


I am not the one who politicized it. You would have a point if that was the case. Plus, I know that climate change is happening. I believe the scientists when they say that it is very bad.
 
2014-03-20 05:37:12 PM  

cman: Listen, every time you get something involved in the political process it becomes a free-for-all brawl. No matter what the subject it happens. You know this just as well as everyone else does.


How the fark else is anything supposed to get changed if not through congress and the presidency. You usually sound a lot more coherent than this, but that comment is just plain potato.
 
2014-03-20 05:40:39 PM  

impaler: Cagey B: cman: I am not saying anything close to both sides are bad.

You're citing "partisanship" in general as the reason we can't address climate change. So tell me, which side is at fault, if it's not a "both sides are bad" situation? Because you seem to be dancing around something.

Step 1) Politicize the science of climate change
Step 2) Complain it's politicized, and we can't really know what's real. Guess we have to maintain the status quo
Step 3) Profit

(actual steps taken by big oil)


Considering the constant pushback I see about this issue online, it's been a wildly successful strategy.
 
2014-03-20 05:42:39 PM  

vernonFL: I bet these climate alarmists fly in jets, drive cars, and have air conditioning.


Have you ever heard anyone say we should stop flying planes, driving cars, or removing air conditioning?

Though there are MANY good arguments for reducing the time we spend in cars. Global warming is just one of them.
 
2014-03-20 05:43:49 PM  

verbal_jizm: cman: Listen, every time you get something involved in the political process it becomes a free-for-all brawl. No matter what the subject it happens. You know this just as well as everyone else does.

How the fark else is anything supposed to get changed if not through congress and the presidency. You usually sound a lot more coherent than this, but that comment is just plain potato.


Why are you under the impression that that is the only way to change things?
 
2014-03-20 05:45:46 PM  

verbal_jizm: How the fark else is anything supposed to get changed if not through congress and the presidency. You usually sound a lot more coherent than this, but that comment is just plain potato.


This is a corporate issue. Not a political one. Until money decides this sh*t is f*cked up we will just keep thrusting ever harder.
 
2014-03-20 05:48:45 PM  

cman: verbal_jizm: cman: Listen, every time you get something involved in the political process it becomes a free-for-all brawl. No matter what the subject it happens. You know this just as well as everyone else does.

How the fark else is anything supposed to get changed if not through congress and the presidency. You usually sound a lot more coherent than this, but that comment is just plain potato.

Why are you under the impression that that is the only way to change things?


What else would you suggest? A PR campaign? Same problem there. The oil companies have a shiat load of cash to spend on advertizing and it's still a partisan issue. Should it be dealt with through international agreement? Oh, already tried that but we need congress to ratify treaties. Seriously, how do you think you can get around oil companies turning this into a partisan issue. It's utterly moronic to think you can avoid it.
 
2014-03-20 05:49:37 PM  

lockers: This is a corporate issue. Not a political one.


And you think those are separate anymore?
 
2014-03-20 05:52:02 PM  

lockers: verbal_jizm: How the fark else is anything supposed to get changed if not through congress and the presidency. You usually sound a lot more coherent than this, but that comment is just plain potato.

This is a corporate issue. Not a political one. Until money decides this sh*t is f*cked up we will just keep thrusting ever harder.


I believe that it's actually going to come down to the insurers to push for movement on it. They are the ones who are on the front lines with regard to risk management.
 
2014-03-20 05:52:04 PM  

verbal_jizm: lockers: This is a corporate issue. Not a political one.

And you think those are separate anymore?


touche
 
2014-03-20 05:53:05 PM  

make me some tea: I believe that it's actually going to come down to the insurers to push for movement on it. They are the ones who are on the front lines with regard to risk management.


The government provides flood insurance. They have already washed their hands of it.
 
2014-03-20 05:54:54 PM  

verbal_jizm: cman: verbal_jizm: cman: Listen, every time you get something involved in the political process it becomes a free-for-all brawl. No matter what the subject it happens. You know this just as well as everyone else does.

How the fark else is anything supposed to get changed if not through congress and the presidency. You usually sound a lot more coherent than this, but that comment is just plain potato.

Why are you under the impression that that is the only way to change things?

What else would you suggest? A PR campaign? Same problem there. The oil companies have a shiat load of cash to spend on advertizing and it's still a partisan issue. Should it be dealt with through international agreement? Oh, already tried that but we need congress to ratify treaties. Seriously, how do you think you can get around oil companies turning this into a partisan issue. It's utterly moronic to think you can avoid it.


Easy. Skip the federal government involvement. You don't need them to do everything. Our country is decentralized.
 
2014-03-20 05:56:29 PM  

cman: verbal_jizm: cman: verbal_jizm: cman: Listen, every time you get something involved in the political process it becomes a free-for-all brawl. No matter what the subject it happens. You know this just as well as everyone else does.

How the fark else is anything supposed to get changed if not through congress and the presidency. You usually sound a lot more coherent than this, but that comment is just plain potato.

Why are you under the impression that that is the only way to change things?

What else would you suggest? A PR campaign? Same problem there. The oil companies have a shiat load of cash to spend on advertizing and it's still a partisan issue. Should it be dealt with through international agreement? Oh, already tried that but we need congress to ratify treaties. Seriously, how do you think you can get around oil companies turning this into a partisan issue. It's utterly moronic to think you can avoid it.

Easy. Skip the federal government involvement. You don't need them to do everything. Our country is decentralized.


Right, there's no partisanship at the state, county, or municipal level. I see what this is though: "The Feds ruin EVERYTHING!!1!"
 
2014-03-20 05:58:10 PM  

cman: phaseolus: cman: Dinki: cman: This wouldn't be that controversial if it wasn't political.

Take the politics out of science and maybe people will take it a bit more seriously.

The politicians are the ones that put the politics in it, not the scientists.

Take a look at the article. Take a look at its logo.

Climate Progress

This is a highly partisan site. They are not scientists. They don't care about science. They care only about the left/right war.

Hey, look. It's the AAAS website.

Is that better? Or does it have cooties, now that thinkprogress.org linked to it?

That does not negate my premise that politics is intertwined with climate science. As long as there are people who use political slogans to push science then there will be partisan clashes.


Politics is also intertwined with masturbation, but I still can't fap to it.
 
2014-03-20 05:58:23 PM  

verbal_jizm: cman: verbal_jizm: cman: verbal_jizm: cman: Listen, every time you get something involved in the political process it becomes a free-for-all brawl. No matter what the subject it happens. You know this just as well as everyone else does.

How the fark else is anything supposed to get changed if not through congress and the presidency. You usually sound a lot more coherent than this, but that comment is just plain potato.

Why are you under the impression that that is the only way to change things?

What else would you suggest? A PR campaign? Same problem there. The oil companies have a shiat load of cash to spend on advertizing and it's still a partisan issue. Should it be dealt with through international agreement? Oh, already tried that but we need congress to ratify treaties. Seriously, how do you think you can get around oil companies turning this into a partisan issue. It's utterly moronic to think you can avoid it.

Easy. Skip the federal government involvement. You don't need them to do everything. Our country is decentralized.

Right, there's no partisanship at the state, county, or municipal level. I see what this is though: "The Feds ruin EVERYTHING!!1!"


What makes you think I was only referring to government in particular?
 
2014-03-20 06:09:41 PM  
No shiat, Sherlock. It's been correcting itself for millions of years before our dumb asses crawled out of the muck.
 
2014-03-20 06:10:28 PM  
Yes, but that self correction would probably involve the extinction of thousands of species and the deaths of billions of humans.

Sadly, the politics have boiled down to:

Democrats:  OMG we need to do something about climate change!
Republicans: OMG we need to stop Democrats from doing anything about climate change!
 
2014-03-20 06:11:46 PM  

cman: Dinki: cman: This wouldn't be that controversial if it wasn't political.

Take the politics out of science and maybe people will take it a bit more seriously.

The politicians are the ones that put the politics in it, not the scientists.

Take a look at the article. Take a look at its logo.

Climate Progress

This is a highly partisan site. They are not scientists. They don't care about science. They care only about the left/right war.


It isn't a left right war it's a science versus paid liars war.
 
2014-03-20 06:12:14 PM  

Ambivalence: Yes, but that self correction would probably involve the extinction of thousands of species and the deaths of billions of humans.

Sadly, the politics have boiled down to:

Democrats:  OMG we need to do something about climate change!
Republicans: OMG we need to stop Democrats from doing anything about climate change!


FTFY
 
2014-03-20 06:13:59 PM  

Dinki: cman: This wouldn't be that controversial if it wasn't political.

Take the politics out of science and maybe people will take it a bit more seriously.

The politicians are the ones that put the politics in it, not the scientists.


Proven by the socioeconomic articles such as wealth transfer requests from rich nations to poor nations... based on climate change. Amazingly scientists can also be politically biased.
 
2014-03-20 06:14:16 PM  
Nice of cman to take a dump in the beginning of the thread and spend the next few hours cleaning it up. You'd think a guy would learn.
 
2014-03-20 06:15:10 PM  
If it's self-correcting, what's the problem?
 
2014-03-20 06:15:16 PM  

cman: Easy. Skip the federal government involvement. You don't need them to do everything. Our country is decentralized.


Awesome.  You're advocating 50 sets of rules, then?  Some of which could be written by people who are convinced that this issue is a lie?
 
2014-03-20 06:16:28 PM  
MyRandomName:
Proven by the socioeconomic articles such as wealth transfer requests from rich nations to poor nations... based on climate change. Amazingly scientists can also be politically biased.

Of course they can be politically biased, but the science can't be.

FFS, why does Fark still let one person control the entire direction of a thread?
Do we really need 30 people replying to cman?
 
2014-03-20 06:17:23 PM  

Cerebral Ballsy: No shiat, Sherlock. It's been correcting itself for millions of years before our dumb asses crawled out of the muck.


and if it "corrects itself" into an environment unfit for human existence?
 
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