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.

(Grist)   Global warming is the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the 21st century, will lead to WWI at 2°C per century. This is not a metaphor   (grist.org) divider line 146
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

1694 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Apr 2014 at 11:43 AM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-22 08:50:05 AM
but we can still fix it if we decide to work together.

Well if we can still fix it, it's not an emergency. Call me when the world is broken beyond any hope of repair and maybe I'll think about doing something.
 
2014-04-22 09:02:15 AM

Delta1212: but we can still fix it if we decide to work together.

Well if we can still fix it, it's not an emergency. Call me when the world is broken beyond any hope of repair and maybe I'll think about doing something.


Not real big on preventative maintenance, are you?
 
2014-04-22 09:03:56 AM
Here's something even more important than global warming as a factor in war: Energy.
 
2014-04-22 09:15:21 AM

Diogenes: Delta1212: but we can still fix it if we decide to work together.

Well if we can still fix it, it's not an emergency. Call me when the world is broken beyond any hope of repair and maybe I'll think about doing something.

Not real big on preventative maintenance, are you?


You know what they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 
2014-04-22 10:02:46 AM
I like that song "take me out"
 
2014-04-22 10:10:37 AM

Delta1212: Diogenes: Delta1212: but we can still fix it if we decide to work together.

Well if we can still fix it, it's not an emergency. Call me when the world is broken beyond any hope of repair and maybe I'll think about doing something.

Not real big on preventative maintenance, are you?

You know what they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Which entirely misses the point.  Key word is "preventative."  You can prevent it from being broken and thereby requiring fixing.

This isn't climate science.  It's common sense.  Tune your car up.  Keep your fitness up.  Save in case you lose your job.  Put a new roof on the house.  It's easier and less expensive in the end to avoid the disaster.
 
2014-04-22 11:34:53 AM
I'm still hoping for a global warming zombie apocalypse with nuclear war thrown in just for spite.
 
2014-04-22 11:36:19 AM
img845.imageshack.us
 
2014-04-22 11:40:13 AM
The real problem is that they are always wrong.  Remember when we were going to run out of oil by the 90s?  Or the time we were overpopulating the world and would run out of arable land by the 70s?  Or when we screwed up our message so badly we had to switch from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?

I'm not suggesting that this crap isn't a serious threat, but lets hear the message from people we can trust and not a bunch of scientist suckling off the government teat.
 
2014-04-22 11:45:57 AM

Lucky LaRue: The real problem is that they are always wrong.  Remember when we were going to run out of oil by the 90s?  Or the time we were overpopulating the world and would run out of arable land by the 70s?  Or when we screwed up our message so badly we had to switch from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?

I'm not suggesting that this crap isn't a serious threat, but lets hear the message from people we can trust and not a bunch of scientist suckling off the government teat.


Right message...wrong tone.  Or something.

Either the problem is not as bad as they say or they are oversimplifying the fix.  We can fix it all with some CFL lightbulbs and a few electric vehicles (that actually cause as much pollution in their manufacture as a regular car does over its lifetime)...

That said, I don't think the government teat is the problem.  Grants are used for all kinds of studies...like multiple orgasms for men.  Its politicians pushing the message that is the issue...politicians who take the science which says A, then extrapolate that into A+ and then scream that the only way to fix it is to do as they say, not as they do.

Also, I'm thinking more could be put into scientific solutions rather than scientific argument over the use of resources and some for me, none for thee thinking.  I love the idea of giant mirrors in space.  Virgin should do that, but charge countries for its use.
 
2014-04-22 11:50:49 AM
I thought we were "past the point of no return" like 2 or 3 years ago and could, therefore, ignore Global Warming?
 
2014-04-22 11:57:31 AM

Chris Ween: We can fix it all with some CFL lightbulbs and a few electric vehicles (that actually cause as much pollution in their manufacture as a regular car does over its lifetime)...


There's a huge difference, though, in where that pollution is located. If an electric car is emission free, even if the resulting pollution of its manufacture were equal, that pollution would be localized far more, and thus easier to deal with, than if the car was spewing pollution for its entire effective life.
Same with creating the electricity to power the electric car. The pollution from the power plant may be equal to gas-guzzlers on the road, but being localized at the power plant instead of 300 million cars on the road, you can take many more, easier steps to mitigate the pollution.
 
2014-04-22 11:58:18 AM

Delta1212: but we can still fix it if we decide to work together.

Well if we can still fix it, it's not an emergency. Call me when the world is broken beyond any hope of repair and maybe I'll think about doing something.


My feelings exactly. I mean, what if we went to all the trouble to build a better world, and "global warming" turned out to be a hoax?
 
2014-04-22 11:59:37 AM
This is why I hate Global Warming fanatics, they have swung so far to the insanity side of it they have lost the ability to reason. It's like a religion now, and if you need proof of that go re-read that article and every where you see Global Warming or Climate Change replace it with God and it sounds like a sermon.

This really makes the insanity case: recent conflicts in Darfur, Tunisia and Egypt were all the fault of Climate Change? So CO2 put in charge really horrible governments and oppressive leaders that cause an uprising? Really? Do you think we're that farking stupid to read that and then go on to believe anything else written in that article?
 
2014-04-22 11:59:44 AM
So, according to this metaphor, someone is going to assassinate global warming?
 
2014-04-22 12:01:06 PM

Chris Ween: .like multiple orgasms for men.


THAT'S AN IMPORTANT STUDY!!

Lucky LaRue: The real problem is that they are always wrong. Remember when we were going to run out of oil by the 90s? Or the time we were overpopulating the world and would run out of arable land by the 70s? Or when we screwed up our message so badly we had to switch from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?

I'm not suggesting that this crap isn't a serious threat, but lets hear the message from people we can trust and not a bunch of scientist suckling off the government teat.



Well let me tell you it really pisses off an old school environmentalist like me. I was taught at a very early age (from the boy scouts) that we had to keep it clean and picking up trash is a good thing. Take only memories, leave only foot prints. Clean water and clean air?! Hell yeah. I dont want to argue if man made GW is real or not but I can tell you one thing; printing up a few thousand flyers so you can promote your consciousness raising concert is effing stupid. I don't care if they are made from 50% reclaimed paper. What do you think the "carbon footprint" for the "Live Earth" concerts is? Remember "think globally act locally"?! Well this we have to save the world stuff does two things 1) we ignore the local 2) most people remember not dying so why should we believe you this time? You want to list off all the Doomsday preachers that didn't come though? Well we have officially entered that category
 
2014-04-22 12:01:28 PM

m1ke: I thought we were "past the point of no return" like 2 or 3 years ago and could, therefore, ignore Global Warming?


No point to steering now.
 
2014-04-22 12:03:51 PM

jso2897: Delta1212: but we can still fix it if we decide to work together.

Well if we can still fix it, it's not an emergency. Call me when the world is broken beyond any hope of repair and maybe I'll think about doing something.

My feelings exactly. I mean, what if we went to all the trouble to build a better world, and "global warming" turned out to be a hoax?


What if you went to all the trouble of passing a bunch of ridiculous laws, wasting a bunch of money and basically pissing everyone off, succeeded in building a crappier world, and global warming turned out to be a hoax?  Because that's the more likely scenario.
 
2014-04-22 12:05:05 PM
Unless all the CO2 in the air is going to fuse together into the shape of an Austrian aristocrat, I think this is still a metaphor.
 
2014-04-22 12:07:32 PM

Delta1212: but we can still fix it if we decide to work together.

Well if we can still fix it, it's not an emergency. Call me when the world is broken beyond any hope of repair and maybe I'll think about doing something.


I remember the Titanic waited until they saw the iceberg before doing something to avoid it. That worked out pretty well,
 
2014-04-22 12:09:27 PM

jso2897: Delta1212: but we can still fix it if we decide to work together.

Well if we can still fix it, it's not an emergency. Call me when the world is broken beyond any hope of repair and maybe I'll think about doing something.

My feelings exactly. I mean, what if we went to all the trouble to build a better world, and "global warming" turned out to be a hoax?


What a waste of effort that would be.
 
2014-04-22 12:10:16 PM

jso2897: Delta1212: but we can still fix it if we decide to work together.

Well if we can still fix it, it's not an emergency. Call me when the world is broken beyond any hope of repair and maybe I'll think about doing something.

My feelings exactly. I mean, what if we went to all the trouble to build a better world, and "global warming" turned out to be a hoax?


Do you think we're not doing all the windmill and solar stuff because we all like giving oil companies money? Because we like making the atmosphere worse?

I'm sure someone will be along with the same simplistic cartoon that always turns up in these threads, but the fact is that clean energy or depriving people from burning fossil fuels has costs. The greatest lift of poverty out of poverty, ever (the last decade in China) happened because they liberalised their economy and burnt a lot of coal.
 
2014-04-22 12:12:39 PM

Lucky LaRue: The real problem is that they are always wrong.  Remember when we were going to run out of oil by the 90s?  Or the time we were overpopulating the world and would run out of arable land by the 70s?  Or when we screwed up our message so badly we had to switch from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?

I'm not suggesting that this crap isn't a serious threat, but lets hear the message from people we can trust and not a bunch of scientist suckling off the government teat.


Yes that's right, science is always wrong.  Stop believing in science, you're better off without it.  As for people we can trust?  hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah aha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha h ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah aha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha h ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
 
2014-04-22 12:12:45 PM

JNowe: succeeded in building a crappier world


How do you figure? There's pretty much nothing saying sustainable development results in a crappier world, but our current style does definitely leave something to be desired...

static.guim.co.uk
 
2014-04-22 12:14:24 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Delta1212: but we can still fix it if we decide to work together.

Well if we can still fix it, it's not an emergency. Call me when the world is broken beyond any hope of repair and maybe I'll think about doing something.

I remember the Titanic waited until they saw the iceberg before doing something to avoid it. That worked out pretty well,


What doomsday scenario do we not throw money at?  Do we need to pay for more research to understand antibiotic resistant bacteria before we stumble on the next bubonic plague?  Maybe we need to increase government funding to discover ways to protect our planet from the next asteroid strike?  Or should we pour more money into studying the dangers and effect of betelgeuse going supernova and frying our asses?

At some point, we are going to run out of money to fund security blankets for everyone afraid of what the future may hold.
 
2014-04-22 12:16:36 PM
You can't stop the effects of climate change.  Unless you can keep the sun from expanding, the climate will continue to change.  Certainly there's things that can be done to help the human population survive a bit longer in order to get off this planet, but you can't stop it.  If there's so much data out there, when is someone going to put their reputation on the line and place a date on when this catastrophe is going to happen.  All I hear is that it will, which is obvious, but where's the when?  Someone grow some balls who's advocating this stuff and put a specific date on it.
 
2014-04-22 12:19:52 PM

BumpInTheNight: Lucky LaRue: The real problem is that they are always wrong. Remember when we were going to run out of oil by the 90s? Or the time we were overpopulating the world and would run out of arable land by the 70s? Or when we screwed up our message so badly we had to switch from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?

I'm not suggesting that this crap isn't a serious threat, but lets hear the message from people we can trust and not a bunch of scientist suckling off the government teat.

Yes that's right, science is always wrong. Stop believing in science, you're better off without it.


Scientists have been spectacularly wrong in their predictions of the effects of X on Earth's biosphere.  In fact, they are wrong far, far more often than they are correct.  They aren't bad scientists for being wrong in their predictions - there are far too many variables for anyone to account for.  But, they are bad scientists for peddling their research as "evidence" of anything other than their own ego and desire for additional funding.
 
2014-04-22 12:21:12 PM

Gnaglor: You can't stop the effects of climate change.  Unless you can keep the sun from expanding, the climate will continue to change.  Certainly there's things that can be done to help the human population survive a bit longer in order to get off this planet, but you can't stop it.  If there's so much data out there, when is someone going to put their reputation on the line and place a date on when this catastrophe is going to happen.  All I hear is that it will, which is obvious, but where's the when?  Someone grow some balls who's advocating this stuff and put a specific date on it.


You could just say you don't understand what they're talking about when they use the big words.
 
2014-04-22 12:22:32 PM

Lucky LaRue: The real problem is that they are always wrong.  Remember when we were going to run out of oil by the 90s?  Or the time we were overpopulating the world and would run out of arable land by the 70s?  Or when we screwed up our message so badly we had to switch from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?

I'm not suggesting that this crap isn't a serious threat, but lets hear the message from people we can trust and not a bunch of scientist suckling off the government teat.


"Remember when" ... No, because your straw man never was said by anyone. The predictions weren't "we were going to run out if oil", the prediction was that we'd achieve 'Peak Oil'. And there was no consensus on when. And without the advent of fracking, we possibly would have experienced a peak. You seem to forget how volatile the energy economy was in the mid-late 2000s until the Great Recession reduced energy demand.

Quit the hyperbole, please.
 
2014-04-22 12:23:39 PM

Gnaglor: You can't stop the effects of climate change.  Unless you can keep the sun from expanding, the climate will continue to change.  Certainly there's things that can be done to help the human population survive a bit longer in order to get off this planet, but you can't stop it.  If there's so much data out there, when is someone going to put their reputation on the line and place a date on when this catastrophe is going to happen.  All I hear is that it will, which is obvious, but where's the when?  Someone grow some balls who's advocating this stuff and put a specific date on it.




We (humans) are helpless when it comes to stopping a slow motion disaster that we are causing. Got it.
 
2014-04-22 12:29:03 PM

jso2897: My feelings exactly. I mean, what if we went to all the trouble to build a better world, and "global warming" turned out to be a hoax?


You know who else wanted to build a better world?  Remember that guy?  I think he was from Australia...
 
2014-04-22 12:29:27 PM

StopLurkListen: Lucky LaRue: The real problem is that they are always wrong.  Remember when we were going to run out of oil by the 90s?  Or the time we were overpopulating the world and would run out of arable land by the 70s?  Or when we screwed up our message so badly we had to switch from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?

I'm not suggesting that this crap isn't a serious threat, but lets hear the message from people we can trust and not a bunch of scientist suckling off the government teat.

"Remember when" ... No, because your straw man never was said by anyone. The predictions weren't "we were going to run out if oil", the prediction was that we'd achieve 'Peak Oil'. And there was no consensus on when. And without the advent of fracking, we possibly would have experienced a peak. You seem to forget how volatile the energy economy was in the mid-late 2000s until the Great Recession reduced energy demand.

Quit the hyperbole, please.


Hubbert's predicted peak for the U.S. happened exactly as predicted. The exploitation of far more marginal sources (deep water wells, tar sands, fracking in areas previously not worth exploiting) do not disprove peak oil. The fact that the low lying fruit had already been picked is what made these more difficult to exploit resources worthwhile.
 
2014-04-22 12:31:57 PM

Gnaglor: You can't stop the effects of climate change.  Unless you can keep the sun from expanding, the climate will continue to change.  Certainly there's things that can be done to help the human population survive a bit longer in order to get off this planet, but you can't stop it.  If there's so much data out there, when is someone going to put their reputation on the line and place a date on when this catastrophe is going to happen.  All I hear is that it will, which is obvious, but where's the when?  Someone grow some balls who's advocating this stuff and put a specific date on it.


LOL... really ?   It takes balls to put predict the End Date?  No. It doesn't. It takes having enough information to accurrately make a prediction. Some people consider this intelligence.....

 Apparently, you're more interested in BALLS

/BALLS
 
2014-04-22 12:32:33 PM

Lucky LaRue: Scientists have been spectacularly wrong in their predictions of the effects of X on Earth's biosphere. In fact, they are wrong far, far more often than they are correct. They aren't bad scientists for being wrong in their predictions - there are far too many variables for anyone to account for. But, they are bad scientists for peddling their research as "evidence" of anything other than their own ego and desire for additional funding.


No no I believe you, you genuinely think that and I believe you.  I used to think opinions like that were trolling or actual astroturfers from the oil companies but after so many years I've come to accept that some people can actually convince themselves to hold opinions like you do about the scientific community and its agenda.

www.bradblog.com
 
2014-04-22 12:33:19 PM
So far we've gotten rid of leaded gas, leaded paint, CFCs, most tobacco and chemical dumping, and the unrestrained harvesting of wild stocks (although we might not have gone far enough). I think we've come a long ways in having a modern world we can live in, and the transistion to post carbon fuel might take a sharp knee in some curve.
 
2014-04-22 12:34:15 PM

StopLurkListen: Lucky LaRue: The real problem is that they are always wrong.  Remember when we were going to run out of oil by the 90s?  Or the time we were overpopulating the world and would run out of arable land by the 70s?  Or when we screwed up our message so badly we had to switch from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?

I'm not suggesting that this crap isn't a serious threat, but lets hear the message from people we can trust and not a bunch of scientist suckling off the government teat.

"Remember when" ... No, because your straw man never was said by anyone. The predictions weren't "we were going to run out if oil", the prediction was that we'd achieve 'Peak Oil'. And there was no consensus on when. And without the advent of fracking, we possibly would have experienced a peak. You seem to forget how volatile the energy economy was in the mid-late 2000s until the Great Recession reduced energy demand.

Quit the hyperbole, please.


Just because you wish I had made the "peak oil" argument doesn't mean that scientists haven't been warning about the end of oil for decades.

Also, your "we didn't account for recession" is a perfect illustration of why environmental scientist shouldn't be trusted. You'd have us spend billions and billions on the problems you envision only to say, "our bad - we forgot to account for seasonal temperature variations"
 
2014-04-22 12:35:16 PM

Lucky LaRue: The real problem is that they are always wrong.  Remember when we were going to run out of oil by the 90s?  Or the time we were overpopulating the world and would run out of arable land by the 70s?  Or when we screwed up our message so badly we had to switch from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?

I'm not suggesting that this crap isn't a serious threat, but lets hear the message from people we can trust and not a bunch of scientist suckling off the government teat.


By "people we can trust", you mean AM radio show hosts and Fox News pundits, don't you.
 
2014-04-22 12:35:54 PM

Baelz: This is why I hate Global Warming fanatics, they have swung so far to the insanity side of it they have lost the ability to reason. It's like a religion now, and if you need proof of that go re-read that article and every where you see Global Warming or Climate Change replace it with God and it sounds like a sermon.

This really makes the insanity case: recent conflicts in Darfur, Tunisia and Egypt were all the fault of Climate Change? So CO2 put in charge really horrible governments and oppressive leaders that cause an uprising? Really? Do you think we're that farking stupid to read that and then go on to believe anything else written in that article?


"Evidence-less religion is stupid, which is why science backed up by both mechanisms and data is stupid too"
--your argument

What I'm saying is you're even dumber than the people taken in by bad arguments, because your basis is self-identified as completely irrational.
 
2014-04-22 12:39:43 PM

Richard C Stanford: By "people we can trust", you mean AM radio show hosts and Fox News pundits, don't you.


Anyone with sufficiently little data is trustworthy.  Once you start examining the collected information whole cloth, you come to completely incorrect conclusions.
 
2014-04-22 12:42:44 PM

Richard C Stanford: Lucky LaRue: The real problem is that they are always wrong.  Remember when we were going to run out of oil by the 90s?  Or the time we were overpopulating the world and would run out of arable land by the 70s?  Or when we screwed up our message so badly we had to switch from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?

I'm not suggesting that this crap isn't a serious threat, but lets hear the message from people we can trust and not a bunch of scientist suckling off the government teat.

By "people we can trust", you mean AM radio show hosts and Fox News pundits, don't you.


Way to maintain the high ground. This is why environmentalist are losing the debate: any criticism is met with personal attacks and the rethoric of hate.
 
2014-04-22 12:53:03 PM
Lucky LaRue:

Way to maintain the high ground. This is why environmentalist are losing the debate: any criticism is met with personal attacks and the rethoric of hate.

'...but lets hear the message from people we can trust and not a bunch of scientist suckling off the government teat .'

Apparently you're losing this debate.
 
2014-04-22 12:57:18 PM

Lucky LaRue: The real problem is that they are always wrong.  Remember when we were going to run out of oil by the 90s?  Or the time we were overpopulating the world and would run out of arable land by the 70s?  Or when we screwed up our message so badly we had to switch from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?

I'm not suggesting that this crap isn't a serious threat, but lets hear the message from people we can trust and not a bunch of scientist suckling off the government teat.


There are a lot of inaccuracies in this post, most relevant to this topic would probably be that Climate Change has been in use long before Global Warming.  Specifically they are separate things, with Global Warming being a subset of Climate Change.  These can be broken down further into "Anthropogenic" and "natural" forcings, though it is generally the case that when people talk about these topics they're talking about the Anthropogenic forcing.

I am curious, who would you trust to provide information on a scientific topic such as Climate Change?
 
2014-04-22 01:05:15 PM

leehouse: Lucky LaRue: The real problem is that they are always wrong.  Remember when we were going to run out of oil by the 90s?  Or the time we were overpopulating the world and would run out of arable land by the 70s?  Or when we screwed up our message so badly we had to switch from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?

I'm not suggesting that this crap isn't a serious threat, but lets hear the message from people we can trust and not a bunch of scientist suckling off the government teat.

There are a lot of inaccuracies in this post, most relevant to this topic would probably be that Climate Change has been in use long before Global Warming.  Specifically they are separate things, with Global Warming being a subset of Climate Change.  These can be broken down further into "Anthropogenic" and "natural" forcings, though it is generally the case that when people talk about these topics they're talking about the Anthropogenic forcing.


It isn't a matter of which term came first in the scientific lexicon, but which phrase the scientific community pushed into the collective psyche and why it ("Global Warming") was chosen over the more accurate (though less threatening-sounding) "Climate Change"

I am curious, who would you trust to provide information on a scientific topic such as Climate Change?

Certainly not the same people whose funding lives and dies by providing politically expedient answers.
 
2014-04-22 01:08:07 PM

Lucky LaRue: It isn't a matter of which term came first in the scientific lexicon, but which phrase the scientific community pushed into the collective psyche and why it ("Global Warming") was chosen over the more accurate (though less threatening-sounding) "Climate Change"

I am curious, who would you trust to provide information on a scientific topic such as Climate Change?

Certainly not the same people whose funding lives and dies by providing politically expedient answers.


Answer the question, astroturfer.
 
2014-04-22 01:11:24 PM

Baelz: This is why I hate Global Warming fanatics, they have swung so far to the insanity side of it they have lost the ability to reason. It's like a religion now, and if you need proof of that go re-read that article and every where you see Global Warming or Climate Change replace it with God and it sounds like a sermon.

This really makes the insanity case: recent conflicts in Darfur, Tunisia and Egypt were all the fault of Climate Change? So CO2 put in charge really horrible governments and oppressive leaders that cause an uprising? Really? Do you think we're that farking stupid to read that and then go on to believe anything else written in that article?


No, I'm almost entirely sure the article writer thought you were smart enough to understand the difference between "contributing" to a conflict and "causing" a conflict.
 
2014-04-22 01:13:20 PM

BumpInTheNight: Lucky LaRue: It isn't a matter of which term came first in the scientific lexicon, but which phrase the scientific community pushed into the collective psyche and why it ("Global Warming") was chosen over the more accurate (though less threatening-sounding) "Climate Change"

I am curious, who would you trust to provide information on a scientific topic such as Climate Change?

Certainly not the same people whose funding lives and dies by providing politically expedient answers.

Answer the question, astroturfer.


I love that you guys get outraged at the suggestion that a scientist who's research, funding, and career relies on playing politics in order to get grants may, in any way, be biased in their research.
 
2014-04-22 01:14:05 PM

Lucky LaRue: BumpInTheNight: Lucky LaRue: It isn't a matter of which term came first in the scientific lexicon, but which phrase the scientific community pushed into the collective psyche and why it ("Global Warming") was chosen over the more accurate (though less threatening-sounding) "Climate Change"

I am curious, who would you trust to provide information on a scientific topic such as Climate Change?

Certainly not the same people whose funding lives and dies by providing politically expedient answers.

Answer the question, astroturfer.

I love that you guys get outraged at the suggestion that a scientist who's research, funding, and career relies on playing politics in order to get grants may, in any way, be biased in their research.


Really can't answer that question can you?
 
2014-04-22 01:20:55 PM

Lucky LaRue: leehouse: Lucky LaRue: The real problem is that they are always wrong.  Remember when we were going to run out of oil by the 90s?  Or the time we were overpopulating the world and would run out of arable land by the 70s?  Or when we screwed up our message so badly we had to switch from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?

I'm not suggesting that this crap isn't a serious threat, but lets hear the message from people we can trust and not a bunch of scientist suckling off the government teat.

There are a lot of inaccuracies in this post, most relevant to this topic would probably be that Climate Change has been in use long before Global Warming.  Specifically they are separate things, with Global Warming being a subset of Climate Change.  These can be broken down further into "Anthropogenic" and "natural" forcings, though it is generally the case that when people talk about these topics they're talking about the Anthropogenic forcing.

It isn't a matter of which term came first in the scientific lexicon, but which phrase the scientific community pushed into the collective psyche and why it ("Global Warming") was chosen over the more accurate (though less threatening-sounding) "Climate Change"

I am curious, who would you trust to provide information on a scientific topic such as Climate Change?

Certainly not the same people whose funding lives and dies by providing politically expedient answers.


The scientific community is different than the media coverage or the environmentalist/political groups both of which had far more to do with what you're talking about.  Conflating these groups is a mistake.  Though there are some notable intersections where people fall into multiple groups this isn't the case for the vast majority.

Secondly providing politically expedient answers, in my experience, has little to do with whether you get funded or not.  Whether you get funded has more to do with whether you have compelling science(based on a review performed by other scientists in the field) you'd like to do, how expensive that science will be(budgetary constraints are a pain), and whether you're capable/qualified to do the work you've proposed.
 
2014-04-22 01:41:30 PM
When one side says a dictator has weapons of mass destruction and decides to go spend a crap ton of money resources and blood to go and eliminate it, and then all that effort is expended just to find out there weren't any weapons of mass destruction...all that side can do is say, "We brought freedom and therefore it's a better place now!" and hightail it home.
 
2014-04-22 01:49:11 PM
These climate threads no longer have any purpose. The only "solution" advanced is massive carbon taxation, something that will NEVER happen in the US or most of the globe. Nothing on the preventative side will be done. We are in reactive mode now.

//Adapt or die.
 
Displayed 50 of 146 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report