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.

(Gawker)   Just .02 percent of published research papers reject global climate change, which is like half. Study it out   (gawker.com) divider line 82
    More: Obvious, research papers, half  
•       •       •

2441 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2014 at 10:08 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-27 10:09:56 AM
Further proof of the conspiracy against anyone who would deny global warming.
 
2014-03-27 10:09:59 AM
The other 99.98% are on the take from Algore and Georgesoros.
 
2014-03-27 10:14:17 AM
Well duh, climate scientists are in it for the money and rock star lifestyle.
 
2014-03-27 10:18:08 AM
If its so true why do you have to sell it so much?
Why the fear of those who might question it?
 
2014-03-27 10:23:15 AM

tlenon: If its so true why do you have to sell it so much?
Why the fear of those who might question it?


Because they (republicans) DO keep questioning it. In the face of overwhelming scientific data they continue to debate it because their big oil and big industry overlords stand to lose money by cleaning up our one and only planet. That's the F why!
 
2014-03-27 10:30:14 AM
I wonder what the percentages are of 1. Scientists who attribute the change primarily to humanity's actions and 2. Scientists who think the change can be stopped by altering human behavior in REALISTIC ways (I.e. Everyone stop driving!...not realistic...cut carbon emissions...realistic).

Personally, I believe the first but do not think the second is going to happen. I don't think humanity is capable of making the kind of changes that will be necessary to slow or stop the warming fast enough.

We should start preparing for the consequences while inching along towards getting off the pollution generating energy model. Of course I doubt we'll do that either, so I'm pretty much resigned to the fact we're going to wipe ourselves mostly off the Earth in a few decades. Luckily I'll be long dead.
 
2014-03-27 10:32:01 AM

tlenon: If its so true why do you have to sell it so much?


See: The tobacco industry
 
2014-03-27 10:37:41 AM

Kevin Lomax: I wonder what the percentages are of 1. Scientists who attribute the change primarily to humanity's actions and 2. Scientists who think the change can be stopped by altering human behavior in REALISTIC ways (I.e. Everyone stop driving!...not realistic...cut carbon emissions...realistic).

Personally, I believe the first but do not think the second is going to happen. I don't think humanity is capable of making the kind of changes that will be necessary to slow or stop the warming fast enough.

We should start preparing for the consequences while inching along towards getting off the pollution generating energy model. Of course I doubt we'll do that either, so I'm pretty much resigned to the fact we're going to wipe ourselves mostly off the Earth in a few decades. Luckily I'll be long dead.


I don't think any or many of the scientists believe it is primarily caused by human activity. But it is certainly a major factor and the part we can do something about. Alternative energy sources and carbon emission restrictions on industry, etc.
 
2014-03-27 10:39:18 AM
 
2014-03-27 10:41:13 AM
I'd like to know who sat down and read all of the research papers.

I'd also like to know who funded all of those research papers.

I'd also like to know the likelyhood of having further research funded if you were anti-climate change.

I'd also like to know what difference any of this makes until China, India and everyone else jumps onboard.

If 5 people are sitting a hot tub and 4 of them decide to shiat in the hot tub, you still end up in a shiatty hot tub.
 
2014-03-27 10:43:53 AM

dobro: tlenon: If its so true why do you have to sell it so much?
Why the fear of those who might question it?

Because they (republicans) DO keep questioning it. In the face of overwhelming scientific data they continue to debate it because their big oil and big industry overlords stand to lose money by cleaning up our one and only planet. That's the F why!


Wait, what?  A colder climate requires us to burn astonishing amounts of fuel to stay warm and stave off hypothermia and not die.  A warmer climate does not.  Doesn't global climate change (formerly known as "global warming" until that stopped being true) stand to hurt fuel producers?
 
2014-03-27 10:44:53 AM

Kevin Lomax: Personally, I believe the first but do not think the second is going to happen. I don't think humanity is capable of making the kind of changes that will be necessary to slow or stop the warming fast enough.


That's the final stage, it comes after "there is no global warming", and "OK there is global warming but humans aren't causing it".

Depressingly, though, you may be right in the sense that politically there isn't the will; technically, it's perfectly possible with technology we have at hand now or in the near future. It's a classic tragedy of the commons.
 
2014-03-27 10:44:59 AM

tlenon: If its so true why do you have to sell it so much?
Why the fear of those who might question it?


because this data is based on figures pulled out of the ass of a people who pretend they are CIA agents and miss months of work at a time.

and with the same blind faith people believed he was a CIA agent, they believe in man made global warming.  and, as we will eventually discover, neither is true.
 
2014-03-27 10:48:12 AM

dobro: Kevin Lomax: I wonder what the percentages are of 1. Scientists who attribute the change primarily to humanity's actions and 2. Scientists who think the change can be stopped by altering human behavior in REALISTIC ways (I.e. Everyone stop driving!...not realistic...cut carbon emissions...realistic).

Personally, I believe the first but do not think the second is going to happen. I don't think humanity is capable of making the kind of changes that will be necessary to slow or stop the warming fast enough.

We should start preparing for the consequences while inching along towards getting off the pollution generating energy model. Of course I doubt we'll do that either, so I'm pretty much resigned to the fact we're going to wipe ourselves mostly off the Earth in a few decades. Luckily I'll be long dead.

I don't think any or many of the scientists believe it is primarily caused by human activity. But it is certainly a major factor and the part we can do something about. Alternative energy sources and carbon emission restrictions on industry, etc.


Great.  Now get the rest of the world to join us and you might have something.  Until then, you can buy all the electric cars ya want and Japan alone will more than make up for your lack of carbon emissions in about 2 seconds.   Oh?  And what about all those toxic batteries in EVs?  They'll eventually no longer be able to hold a charge and need to be replaced.  Can they be disposed of 'greenly'?
 
2014-03-27 10:49:30 AM

jaybeezey: I'd like to know who sat down and read all of the research papers.

I'd also like to know who funded all of those research papers.

I'd also like to know the likelyhood of having further research funded if you were anti-climate change.


Of course you would. And once those questions were answered, you would be completely satisfied and would accept the overwhelming scientific consensus, wouldn't you? Because you're just asking questions.

Mind you, it's not that you'd like to know so much that you'd actually do anything about it, unlike the people who actually wrote the papers.
 
2014-03-27 10:52:03 AM

TanHamster: Wait, what? A colder climate requires us to burn astonishing amounts of fuel to stay warm and stave off hypothermia and not die. A warmer climate does not. Doesn't global climate change (formerly known as "global warming" until that stopped being true) stand to hurt fuel producers?


I refuse to believe that anybody is actually this ignorant yet still feels entitled to an opinion on climate change. No Dunning-Kruger Effect can be that large, surely?

/In case it wasn't already obvious, I am well past the point of trying to engage with denialists, and am now resigned to pointing and laughing.
 
2014-03-27 10:57:24 AM
This again?  Repeat from a few months ago.  You can see the list of papers here:

http://www.jamespowell.org/resources/Nov2012thruDec2013.xlsx

that include such solid evidence by climate scientists on topics such as :

A knowledge-aid approach for designing high-performance buildings

A Model of Malaria Epidemiology Involving Weather, Exposure and Transmission Applied to North East India

A Multidimensional Analysis to Evaluate District Heating Systems

A new static lighting concentrator with optical coupler

A perspective on time: loss frequencies, time scales and lifetimes


and many many more.  Now I don't doubt the author's ability to speak to their subjects, such as designing high performance buildings.  I do doubt that they say much more than  "due to anthropogenic climate change, we need to design high performance buildings".

Basically most of these papers have nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change, other than mentioning it in passing.  Certainly not expert climatologist opinions.  This, my friends, is junk science at its best.  But please, post that pie chart all over the place.  It looks convincing.
 
2014-03-27 10:58:36 AM

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: Oh? And what about all those toxic batteries in EVs? They'll eventually no longer be able to hold a charge and need to be replaced. Can they be disposed of 'greenly'?


Yep

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/can-electric-car-batteries-be-recycled .h tm
 
2014-03-27 10:58:49 AM

SlothB77: tlenon: If its so true why do you have to sell it so much?
Why the fear of those who might question it?

because this data is based on figures pulled out of the ass of a people who pretend they are CIA agents and miss months of work at a time.

and with the same blind faith people believed he was a CIA agent, they believe in man made global warming.  and, as we will eventually discover, neither is true.


This sounds very scientific, have you written a paper that disproves the theory based on one man and something something CIA agent?
 
2014-03-27 11:18:47 AM
I'm sure every industry wholeheartedly agrees that other industries should cut down on their pollutants to slow this thing down.
 
2014-03-27 11:19:16 AM

czetie: TanHamster: Wait, what? A colder climate requires us to burn astonishing amounts of fuel to stay warm and stave off hypothermia and not die. A warmer climate does not. Doesn't global climate change (formerly known as "global warming" until that stopped being true) stand to hurt fuel producers?

I refuse to believe that anybody is actually this ignorant yet still feels entitled to an opinion on climate change. No Dunning-Kruger Effect can be that large, surely?

/In case it wasn't already obvious, I am well past the point of trying to engage with denialists, and am now resigned to pointing and laughing.



You probably:
(1) live in Florida or Southern California
(2) are not a farmer

I have several farmer friends here in rural, central NY who have lost tons of rootstock due to the unprecedented, prolonged deep freeze.  They are well past the point of caring what office workers on the internet think about climate change, and are trying to mitigate the loss of several years' worth of revenue.
 
2014-03-27 11:22:33 AM
Logic is dead.  It's all just morons with pie charts running the world.
 
2014-03-27 11:27:25 AM

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: dobro: Kevin Lomax: I wonder what the percentages are of 1. Scientists who attribute the change primarily to humanity's actions and 2. Scientists who think the change can be stopped by altering human behavior in REALISTIC ways (I.e. Everyone stop driving!...not realistic...cut carbon emissions...realistic).

Personally, I believe the first but do not think the second is going to happen. I don't think humanity is capable of making the kind of changes that will be necessary to slow or stop the warming fast enough.

We should start preparing for the consequences while inching along towards getting off the pollution generating energy model. Of course I doubt we'll do that either, so I'm pretty much resigned to the fact we're going to wipe ourselves mostly off the Earth in a few decades. Luckily I'll be long dead.

I don't think any or many of the scientists believe it is primarily caused by human activity. But it is certainly a major factor and the part we can do something about. Alternative energy sources and carbon emission restrictions on industry, etc.

Great.  Now get the rest of the world to join us and you might have something.  Until then, you can buy all the electric cars ya want and Japan alone will more than make up for your lack of carbon emissions in about 2 seconds.   Oh?  And what about all those toxic batteries in EVs?  They'll eventually no longer be able to hold a charge and need to be replaced.  Can they be disposed of 'greenly'?


Well, yea, lithium makes a dandy explosive.
 
2014-03-27 11:29:26 AM

SlothB77: Yeah, those figures have been discredited.
over
and
over
and
over again.

and of course most scientific papers do not pursue negative outcomes.


The oil industry still isn't going to sleep with you.

/but they do appreciate you shilling for them
 
2014-03-27 11:33:57 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: SlothB77: Yeah, those figures have been discredited.
over
and
over
and
over again.

and of course most scientific papers do not pursue negative outcomes.

The oil industry still isn't going to sleep with you.

/but they do appreciate you shilling for them


With you around creating your own terrors(deniers, big oil, big coal), they hardly need shills.

Big oil and coal could care less. You fools are NEVER going to affect their road to riches.
 
2014-03-27 11:37:20 AM

snocone: Tyrone Slothrop: SlothB77: Yeah, those figures have been discredited.
over
and
over
and
over again.

and of course most scientific papers do not pursue negative outcomes.

The oil industry still isn't going to sleep with you.

/but they do appreciate you shilling for them

With you around creating your own terrors(deniers, big oil, big coal), they hardly need shills.

Big oil and coal could care less. You fools are NEVER going to affect their road to riches.


Actually the voters keep installing people that have decimated the coal industry. China isn't a model for out energy concerns.
 
2014-03-27 11:39:05 AM

dobro: I don't think any or many of the scientists believe it is primarily caused by human activity.


Yes, that's exactly what they do think (if by "primarily" you mean "more than half", and by "it" you mean the change we've scene since the second half of the 20th century).
 
2014-03-27 11:39:33 AM
These are the three possibilities with scientific papers:
1. They affirm global climate change
2. They disprove global climate change
3. They do not address global climate change.

I can't believe all you libby lemmings treat global warming as fact when only 1/3 of papers affirm it.
 
2014-03-27 11:39:34 AM

TanHamster: You probably:
(1) live in Florida or Southern California
(2) are not a farmer


(1) Wrong and (2) Almost wrong. I live right next to a large dairy farm, and am friends with the farmer (we met because his cows occasionally get into my land).


I have several farmer friends here in rural, central NY who have lost tons of rootstock due to the unprecedented, prolonged deep freeze. They are well past the point of caring what office workers on the internet think about climate change, and are trying to mitigate the loss of several years' worth of revenue.

I have no idea what point you think you are making.

But now having demonstrated your profound ignorance about climate change in your previous post, you decide to double and triple down by showing that you don't know the difference between "weather" and "climate", nor the difference between "global" and "north eastern United States".

And yet, bizarrely, you still think you're the smart guy in the room. It's just astonishing

/Points, laughs.
 
2014-03-27 11:39:35 AM

TanHamster: dobro: tlenon: If its so true why do you have to sell it so much?
Why the fear of those who might question it?

Because they (republicans) DO keep questioning it. In the face of overwhelming scientific data they continue to debate it because their big oil and big industry overlords stand to lose money by cleaning up our one and only planet. That's the F why!

Wait, what?  A colder climate requires us to burn astonishing amounts of fuel to stay warm and stave off hypothermia and not die.  A warmer climate does not.  Doesn't global climate change (formerly known as "global warming" until that stopped being true) stand to hurt fuel producers?


They stopped calling it that because ignorant people like you still don't understand the difference between climate and weather.  See also: Every retard that looks outside when it's snowing and says "So much for global warming!"
 
2014-03-27 11:47:40 AM

TanHamster: I have several farmer friends here in rural, central NY who have lost tons of rootstock due to the unprecedented, prolonged deep freeze.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-27 12:16:42 PM
Gawker is gonna flog its media organ until there's no skin left

You lost the GobalCon, Gawker. Stop now while you still have some foreskin left
 
2014-03-27 12:18:13 PM
If you are worried about man made global warming then just unplug your computer, turn of the lights and stop breathing so much because you are killing polar bears.
 
2014-03-27 12:33:12 PM
I don't have any kids, so my hobby is making large piles of coal and setting it on fire.
 
2014-03-27 12:37:58 PM
I, for one, am a firm believer in "global warming," and that it is primarily driven by human activities.  What I do NOT agree on is that we need to curtail it.  I mean, just look at that f*$%ing cold-ass weather outside.  LOOK AT IT.  Sure, most of the world is warmer, but not here!  We need to keep warming the planet until *everywhere* is warmer, not just the western USA...or most of Europe...and Africa...and a good chunk of Asia and Austraila...  The whole shebang.  So what if the seas rise.  A bunch of rich people lose their ocean-side mansions.  Boo freaking hoo.  They can go buy another.
 
2014-03-27 12:38:58 PM
It's been fun watching denialists evolve their arguments.

'It's not happening.'
'Okay, it's happening, but it's not our fault.'
'Okay, it's our fault, but there's nothing we can do.'
'Okay, we can do something, but it's not worth doing unless everyone does.'


Last one also gets swapped out with 'Okay, we can do something but we shouldn't because it's good for us.'
 
2014-03-27 12:42:34 PM
Any physics major knows that braking the car converts potential energy into heat, thus warming the planet each and every time a car brake is applied.
I am doing my part, I no longer brake for polar bears!
 
2014-03-27 12:53:13 PM
It's changing.
It's always been changing, since it began.
 
2014-03-27 01:10:39 PM

Clemkadidlefark: Gawker is gonna flog its media organ until there's no skin left

You lost the GobalCon, Gawker. Stop now while you still have some foreskin left


Again with the penises.  What is it with you guys and penises?

/NTTAWWT
 
2014-03-27 01:25:34 PM

Clemkadidlefark: Gawker is gonna flog its media organ until there's no skin left

You lost the GobalCon, Gawker. Stop now while you still have some foreskin left


Yeah guys, global warming was invented by Gawker.
 
2014-03-27 01:28:56 PM

SlothB77: tlenon: If its so true why do you have to sell it so much?
Why the fear of those who might question it?

because this data is based on figures pulled out of the ass of a people who pretend they are CIA agents and miss months of work at a time.

and with the same blind faith people believed he was a CIA agent, they believe in man made global warming.  and, as we will eventually discover, neither is true.


I'm sure you know more than most of the world's climate scientists. You're brilliant!

Nice cherry picking in your link about Cook's paper... The writer talked only to known climate change skeptics. Besides, Cook's paper is far from the only evidence that the vast majority of climate scientists accept AGW as having a very significant impact on the global climate.

Get your head out of the sand and stop being an ignorant douche who only believes what you want to.

A major reason so little gets done to address AGW is because there are so many ignorant people like you who refuse to believe it's real no matter what the evidence and keep sucking on that Koch propaganda.

TanHamster:
I have several farmer friends here in rural, central NY who have lost tons of rootstock due to the unprecedented, prolonged deep freeze.  They are well past the point of caring what office workers on the internet think about climate change, and are trying to mitigate the loss of several years' worth of revenue.

lol... wut? There was a cold winter where you live, therefore global warming is false? You cannot be so profoundly ignorant. The cold winter in much of the lower 48 US states represented a tiny percentage of the world's surface area. At the same time Australia, Alaska, northern Norway, and elsewhere were shattering heat records. Global warming doesn't mean it won't get cold anymore and one region on the planet makes up a tiny portion of overall global climate. How is that hard to understand?
 
2014-03-27 01:33:42 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: It's changing.
It's always been changing, since it began.


Show me World Climate has stopped changing and I promise to panic AND give a fark.
 
2014-03-27 01:34:48 PM

SlothB77: Yeah, those figures have been discredited.
over
and
over
and
over again.

and of course most scientific papers do not pursue negative outcomes.


The "Friends of Science" seems legit.  Doesn't sound fishy at all!
 
2014-03-27 01:37:42 PM

SlothB77: Yeah, those figures have been discredited.
over
and
over
and
over again.

and of course most scientific papers do not pursue negative outcomes.


Three of your links refer to the exact same paper published by "Friends of Science", a strongly anti-global warming advocacy group. The group was created by members of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists. It is supported primarily by oil and gas companies.

Sounds legit!
 
2014-03-27 01:40:12 PM
What does it matter anyway, God will fix it.
 
2014-03-27 01:42:37 PM

jaybeezey: I'd also like to know what difference any of this makes until China, India and everyone else jumps onboard.

If 5 people are sitting a hot tub and 4 of them decide to shiat in the hot tub, you still end up in a shiatty hot tub.


I like this analogy. I mean, it's not a very good analogy, as analogies go. But what I really like about it is what would happen if the Indian guy and the Chinese guy and the other two guys (Mexican and African?) all promised they wouldn't shiat in the hottub. There'd be a nice, peaceful moment of quiet bubbling. And then the big fat American guy would get this really intense look on his face, then grimace, and then all of a sudden PPPLLLLOOOOOOOOOOORPBLHBLHBLHFLIBBERFLIBBERFLIBBERPLEEERRRRRRRRRP, the water turns all frothy and brown and he starts chanting, "USA! USA! USA! USA!"
 
2014-03-27 01:44:14 PM
If scientists keep writing papers at this rate the cost of deforestation on the planet will become irreversible.
 
2014-03-27 02:13:47 PM

patrick767: lol... wut? There was a cold winter where you live, therefore global warming is false? You cannot be so profoundly ignorant. The cold winter in much of the lower 48 US states represented a tiny percentage of the world's surface area. At the same time Australia, Alaska, northern Norway, and elsewhere were shattering heat records. Global warming doesn't mean it won't get cold anymore and one region on the planet makes up a tiny portion of overall global climate. How is that hard to understand?



Let's see... Alaska shattered its all-time wind chill record in February of this year, with a respectable -97 degrees.

Last year, Antartica recorded the  coldest temperate ever recorded: -135.8
 
2014-03-27 02:18:39 PM

SlothB77: and of course most scientific papers do not pursue negative outcomes.


You can't proof a theory. You can only disprove it. So in fact ALL scientific papers pursue negative outcomes.
 
2014-03-27 02:20:46 PM

SlothB77: Yeah, those figures have been discredited.
over
and
over
and
over again.

and of course most scientific papers do not pursue negative outcomes.


The Friends of Science links (really, two links to the exact same thing?) you provided is absolute bullsh*t. In a prior thread about it, I went over some of the clearer faults within it at the outset. If you feel my interpretation of their "report" (put in quotes because I'm still genuinely not sure what that document is supposed to be) is inaccurate, please feel free to let me know and we can discuss it. But otherwise, linking to Friends of Science to discredit some studies of climate science consensus is like citing a creationist to discredit the discovery of a major transitional fossil.
 
Displayed 50 of 82 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report