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.

(Uproxx)   That sound you hear is the massive mic John Oliver and Bill Nye dropped on climate change deniers last night   (uproxx.com) divider line 224
    More: Spiffy, climate change deniers  
•       •       •

7181 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 May 2014 at 3:22 PM (11 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-12 12:41:02 PM
I agree climate change is caused by humans, but I WILL NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF HATS!
 
2014-05-12 12:48:11 PM
John Oliver has been killing it.
 
2014-05-12 12:59:16 PM
400 ppm and climbing.
 
2014-05-12 01:14:57 PM
My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

img.fark.net
 
2014-05-12 01:16:20 PM

netizencain: My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

[img.fark.net image 602x329]


For one thing, the data sample is far too small. Extend that out to about 1700 and it will look quite a bit different.
 
2014-05-12 01:17:53 PM

James!: John Oliver has been killing it.


Yeah, he's carrying Jon Stewart's torch quite well. It's a good format.
 
2014-05-12 01:23:56 PM

make me some tea: netizencain: My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

[img.fark.net image 602x329]

For one thing, the data sample is far too small. Extend that out to about 1700 and it will look quite a bit different.


Here's the data referenced in that graphic. It only goes back to about 1997, though, and I'm not entirely sure how to read that. Maybe someone can make sense of it?
http://data.remss.com/msu/
 
2014-05-12 01:29:17 PM

netizencain: My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

[img.fark.net image 602x329]


It's a convenient time frame that means nothing on a larger scale.  If you use one more year or one fewer year it would show an increase and even that wouldn't paint an accurate picture because It completely ignores higher CO2 in the oceans - that being one of a litany of reasons that chart is worthless. Here's a good place to learn more.
 
2014-05-12 01:40:28 PM

netizencain: My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

[img.fark.net image 602x329]


img.fark.net
 
2014-05-12 01:41:54 PM

WI241TH: netizencain: My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

[img.fark.net image 602x329]

It's a convenient time frame that means nothing on a larger scale.  If you use one more year or one fewer year it would show an increase and even that wouldn't paint an accurate picture because It completely ignores higher CO2 in the oceans - that being one of a litany of reasons that chart is worthless. Here's a good place to learn more.


I'm no scientist,,, shiat I'm barely smart enough to do my own job.  I tried to explain the 'small sample' issue but he just keeps telling me that it's "weather".  I'm not trying to win him over... just give him a few talking points to help him think outside of what he's been told.

It's a bit sad... my dad and mom weren't always closed minded about things like gay marriage, politics, religions, et al.... Is this going to happen to me in my 70's?
 
2014-05-12 01:45:23 PM

netizencain: WI241TH: netizencain: My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

[img.fark.net image 602x329]

It's a convenient time frame that means nothing on a larger scale.  If you use one more year or one fewer year it would show an increase and even that wouldn't paint an accurate picture because It completely ignores higher CO2 in the oceans - that being one of a litany of reasons that chart is worthless. Here's a good place to learn more.

I'm no scientist,,, shiat I'm barely smart enough to do my own job.  I tried to explain the 'small sample' issue but he just keeps telling me that it's "weather".  I'm not trying to win him over... just give him a few talking points to help him think outside of what he's been told.

It's a bit sad... my dad and mom weren't always closed minded about things like gay marriage, politics, religions, et al.... Is this going to happen to me in my 70's?


No climate change will kill you before you turn 70.
 
2014-05-12 01:46:56 PM

netizencain: My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

[img.fark.net image 602x329]


Send him a graph of CO2 levels.
 
2014-05-12 01:48:43 PM

FlashHarry: netizencain: My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

[img.fark.net image 602x329]

[img.fark.net image 813x555]


That's good.
 
2014-05-12 01:50:21 PM

netizencain: It's a bit sad... my dad and mom weren't always closed minded about things like gay marriage, politics, religions, et al.... Is this going to happen to me in my 70's?


It's happened to my mom, she's been completely assimilated into the right-wing bullshiat machine. Age causes mental decline in the best of us, I'm afraid.
 
2014-05-12 01:50:25 PM

make me some tea: That's good.


skeptics always cherry-pick data. climate = weather + time... lots of time. so even your 17-year span isn't a whole lot of use to a climate scientist.
 
2014-05-12 01:53:05 PM

netizencain: My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

[img.fark.net image 602x329]


Vietnam vet?  Ask him to prove the police action happened.  Refute everything he says.
 
2014-05-12 01:58:42 PM

haemaker: netizencain: My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

[img.fark.net image 602x329]

Vietnam vet?  Ask him to prove the police action happened.  Refute everything he says.


I really try not to be confrontational.  I hide him from almost everything I share online except for photos of the kids.  Perhaps it's just a lost cause.  I have a sister that's going down the same path.  Fundamentalist christian, conservative, fox news, prepper, gun nut.  I try to get her to see different points of view... sometimes, I really miss my sister.
 
2014-05-12 02:05:12 PM

netizencain: haemaker: netizencain: My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

[img.fark.net image 602x329]

Vietnam vet?  Ask him to prove the police action happened.  Refute everything he says.

I really try not to be confrontational.  I hide him from almost everything I share online except for photos of the kids.  Perhaps it's just a lost cause.  I have a sister that's going down the same path.  Fundamentalist christian, conservative, fox news, prepper, gun nut.  I try to get her to see different points of view... sometimes, I really miss my sister.


I hear ya, dude. I have to really censor what I talk about with my family. It sucks, because I have a lot to talk about, but the only response I'll likely receive is a bunch of derp.
 
2014-05-12 02:10:55 PM

netizencain: WI241TH: netizencain: My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

[img.fark.net image 602x329]

It's a convenient time frame that means nothing on a larger scale.  If you use one more year or one fewer year it would show an increase and even that wouldn't paint an accurate picture because It completely ignores higher CO2 in the oceans - that being one of a litany of reasons that chart is worthless. Here's a good place to learn more.

I'm no scientist,,, shiat I'm barely smart enough to do my own job.  I tried to explain the 'small sample' issue but he just keeps telling me that it's "weather".  I'm not trying to win him over... just give him a few talking points to help him think outside of what he's been told.

It's a bit sad... my dad and mom weren't always closed minded about things like gay marriage, politics, religions, et al.... Is this going to happen to me in my 70's?


Alright, well here's a graph of the exact same data source for 2008 - present:
img.fark.net
src:http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AM SU_Cha nnel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_And_Ocean_v03_3.txt
Like I said, it's not a full picture of what's going on, but it may be a good place to start
 
2014-05-12 02:18:24 PM

make me some tea: netizencain: My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

[img.fark.net image 602x329]

For one thing, the data sample is far too small. Extend that out to about 1700 and it will look quite a bit different.


Any time someone begins with a weird date, it's a pretty safe bet they are trying to lie with statistics.  10 years?  20 years?  50 years?  Sure.  17 years?  Hmmm.  Seems legit.
 
2014-05-12 02:26:46 PM

WI241TH: netizencain: WI241TH: netizencain: My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

[img.fark.net image 602x329]

It's a convenient time frame that means nothing on a larger scale.  If you use one more year or one fewer year it would show an increase and even that wouldn't paint an accurate picture because It completely ignores higher CO2 in the oceans - that being one of a litany of reasons that chart is worthless. Here's a good place to learn more.

I'm no scientist,,, shiat I'm barely smart enough to do my own job.  I tried to explain the 'small sample' issue but he just keeps telling me that it's "weather".  I'm not trying to win him over... just give him a few talking points to help him think outside of what he's been told.

It's a bit sad... my dad and mom weren't always closed minded about things like gay marriage, politics, religions, et al.... Is this going to happen to me in my 70's?

Alright, well here's a graph of the exact same data source for 2008 - present:
[img.fark.net image 638x463]
src:http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AM SU_Cha nnel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_And_Ocean_v03_3.txt
Like I said, it's not a full picture of what's going on, but it may be a good place to start


Even so, 2008-present is pretty well meaningless to the discussion. Let's look at 1914-2014 and then move forward.

BSABSVR: Any time someone begins with a weird date, it's a pretty safe bet they are trying to lie with statistics.  10 years?  20 years?  50 years?  Sure.  17 years?  Hmmm.  Seems legit.


Either that, or the data is partial due to new monitoring systems being introduced at the time. Which is why you have to put multiple sources of data together to form the picture. I see deniers point to one project that has a limited scope and claim that it refutes the larger argument, when it quite obviously does not when you pair it with other data collected via other methods (ice cores and tree rings are great sources of paleodata).
 
2014-05-12 02:30:22 PM

make me some tea: WI241TH: netizencain: WI241TH: netizencain: My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

[img.fark.net image 602x329]

It's a convenient time frame that means nothing on a larger scale.  If you use one more year or one fewer year it would show an increase and even that wouldn't paint an accurate picture because It completely ignores higher CO2 in the oceans - that being one of a litany of reasons that chart is worthless. Here's a good place to learn more.

I'm no scientist,,, shiat I'm barely smart enough to do my own job.  I tried to explain the 'small sample' issue but he just keeps telling me that it's "weather".  I'm not trying to win him over... just give him a few talking points to help him think outside of what he's been told.

It's a bit sad... my dad and mom weren't always closed minded about things like gay marriage, politics, religions, et al.... Is this going to happen to me in my 70's?

Alright, well here's a graph of the exact same data source for 2008 - present:
[img.fark.net image 638x463]
src:http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AM SU_Cha nnel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_And_Ocean_v03_3.txt
Like I said, it's not a full picture of what's going on, but it may be a good place to start

Even so, 2008-present is pretty well meaningless to the discussion. Let's look at 1914-2014 and then move forward.

BSABSVR: Any time someone begins with a weird date, it's a pretty safe bet they are trying to lie with statistics.  10 years?  20 years?  50 years?  Sure.  17 years?  Hmmm.  Seems legit.

Either that, or the data is partial due to new monitoring systems being introduced at the time. Which is why you have to put multiple sources of data together to form the picture. I see deniers point to one project that has a limited scope and claim that it refutes the larger argument, when it quite obviously does not when you pair it with other ...


I hear that a lot too.... "They reclassify what a hurricane is... they changed the definition of autism... they have new ways of measure X... it's all a scam to get money!"
 
2014-05-12 02:41:33 PM
add drooling dimwit teabagger tool marco "little putz" rubio to the dumb list.
 
2014-05-12 02:45:18 PM

netizencain: My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

[img.fark.net image 602x329]


Isn't the trendline at +0.2C/year, so averaging a consistent increase of 0.2C/year?  Just because the "change" trendline is flat, doesn't mean the value isn't changing.  If it was flat at 0.0C/yr then it would be unchanging.
 
2014-05-12 02:51:46 PM

netizencain: I hear that a lot too.... "They reclassify what a hurricane is... they changed the definition of autism... they have new ways of measure X... it's all a scam to get money!"


Imagine that! R&D costs money? People get paid to do research the climate? IT'S ALL A SCAM
 
2014-05-12 02:55:18 PM
 
2014-05-12 03:01:41 PM
It's just Jesus hugging us extra tight because Michael Sam got drafted!
 
2014-05-12 03:03:11 PM

The Goddamn Batman: One in four Americans also believes the sun goes around the Earth.


Quick, get Bill Nye and some Republican to debate this on air!!  But, make sure each gets equal time so it's fair!!
 
2014-05-12 03:18:00 PM

The Goddamn Batman: One in four Americans also believes the sun goes around the Earth.


as depressing as that is, one has to wonder if that's a failure on our part to teach or a failure on their part to learn
 
2014-05-12 03:25:14 PM

netizencain: My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

[img.fark.net image 602x329]


The problem with that graph is that the mid-90s was one of the most dramatic upward shifts- That graph just shows the 'new normal', a world that is hotter than it was previous to it.  In the mid 90s, the argument was that the upward tick in temperature was temporary and cyclical.  His graph shows it as an ongoing and more permanent change.

So the graph that he's posting actually demonstrates that more permanent climate change is real, not what he thinks it does.
 
2014-05-12 03:33:52 PM
I'm not a climate change denier per say, and I believe that pollution needs to be dealt with because we have people dying from air quality issues during the warmer months.  I have couple of issues that maybe someone smarter than me can address about climate change.

1.  Recorded climate actuals have only be recorded accurately for what?  Last hundred years? two hundred years?(Please correct me if I'm wrong, since these are assumptions on my part)
2.  While humans have an impact, other factors are also impacting overall climate.(Sun Spot cycle, Gulf Stream, etc...)
3.  We have had what?  6 ice ages that we are able to find evidence for?  This tells me at least, that large climate fluctuations occur without any human intervention on a cyclic basis.

So my question is "Just how much of an impact does human activity have versus other natural cyclic events?"  Most likely not an easy question to answer.
 
2014-05-12 03:34:52 PM

netizencain: but he just keeps telling me that it's "weather". I'm not trying to win him over... just give him a few talking points to help him think outside of what he's been told.


Climate is not weather.

also, see: Answers to the top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments
 
2014-05-12 03:43:07 PM
So...when do we sit the Birthers and Truthers down and give them "the talk"?
 
2014-05-12 03:43:21 PM

LostInTO: I'm not a climate change denier per say, and I believe that pollution needs to be dealt with because we have people dying from air quality issues during the warmer months.  I have couple of issues that maybe someone smarter than me can address about climate change.

1.  Recorded climate actuals have only be recorded accurately for what?  Last hundred years? two hundred years?(Please correct me if I'm wrong, since these are assumptions on my part)
2.  While humans have an impact, other factors are also impacting overall climate.(Sun Spot cycle, Gulf Stream, etc...)
3.  We have had what?  6 ice ages that we are able to find evidence for?  This tells me at least, that large climate fluctuations occur without any human intervention on a cyclic basis.


1. Ice cores and tree ring analysis has increased our dataset out to a good hundred-thousand years or so. Paleodata FTW
2. Yes the Sun does impact weather on Earth, however the solar cycle is no different than it ever has been, so it's been ruled out as a direct cause for recent warming data.
3. Ice ages do occur, but the climate changes that bring them about take millennia to complete. The dramatic warming we're seeing here has occurred in the last 150 years, which is a strong aberration from historical data.

So my question is "Just how much of an impact does human activity have versus other natural cyclic events?"  Most likely not an easy question to answer.

The data shows that carbon dioxide artificially being released into the atmosphere, which the existing vegetation is unable to keep up with, has caused global glacier and polar ice shrinkage (this can and has been measured the space of a few years, see the documentary "Chasing Ice" if you don't believe me), increased methane output, measurable ocean temperature rise, and increased severe weather globally.
 
2014-05-12 03:44:50 PM
Mic droppers are just lazy, messy people. Come back here and put it in the stand like a grownup.
 
2014-05-12 03:44:52 PM

LostInTO: I'm not a climate change denier per say, and I believe that pollution needs to be dealt with because we have people dying from air quality issues during the warmer months.  I have couple of issues that maybe someone smarter than me can address about climate change.

1.  Recorded climate actuals have only be recorded accurately for what?  Last hundred years? two hundred years?(Please correct me if I'm wrong, since these are assumptions on my part)
2.  While humans have an impact, other factors are also impacting overall climate.(Sun Spot cycle, Gulf Stream, etc...)
3.  We have had what?  6 ice ages that we are able to find evidence for?  This tells me at least, that large climate fluctuations occur without any human intervention on a cyclic basis.

So my question is "Just how much of an impact does human activity have versus other natural cyclic events?"  Most likely not an easy question to answer.


1. Ice core readings and tree rings.
2. Most of those things are cyclical (like you said in 3.) but information taking that into account still shows a warming (that is mostly going into the oceans) that is the cause of ocean levels rising (warm water expands).
3. I guess this is where it comes down for some people. Some want to just 'hope' that it is a cycle, so they won't have to take any sort of responsibility. I see a 100% increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 100 years along with a constant rise in temperature and I'm pretty convinced that it is happening and that man is the cause of it.


also, see: Answers to the top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments
 
2014-05-12 03:49:43 PM

somedude210: The Goddamn Batman: One in four Americans also believes the sun goes around the Earth.

as depressing as that is, one has to wonder if that's a failure on our part to teach or a failure on their part to learn


Probably the same 25% that still approved of Bush the Lesser at the end.
 
2014-05-12 03:51:59 PM

netizencain: My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

[img.fark.net image 602x329]


There is no help for him.
 
2014-05-12 03:53:14 PM
My wife was laughing that John Oliver showed more uncensored full-frontal male nudity in one episode than Game of Thrones has shown in 3 seasons.  In her words, "in GRR Martin's books the nudity was equal-opportunity. In the show, it's almost always the women who are nude."
 
2014-05-12 03:54:24 PM
Brought to you by the same scientists that said eggs were bad for you.. then good.  Cyclomates were bad for you.. now they are back.

Climate changes all the time... humans probably are a contributor.  They tried the carbon swaps in Europe and it was a windfall for the con men.

Call me when you have a real solution to the problem.. one that will not crash the global economy and can scientifically be shown to actually reverse what we have done and I will listen to you.

But in the meantime, we should continue working on renewable energy and putting out less emissions.

And the elephant in the room with this entire issue?... its world population..  people need to stop spitting out crotch fruit, because the increased demand (especially food) is the single greatest contributor to global warming.

In the past we had wars and diseases that kept the human population in check.... not so much anymore.  Eventually a super bug will mutate and cull the population on its own.

/rant off.
 
2014-05-12 03:54:42 PM

netizencain: My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

[img.fark.net image 602x329]


Isn't every one of these starting or ending with an el nino (or el nina, or whatever) "cold year" to skew the results lower?
 
2014-05-12 03:56:07 PM

LostInTO: I'm not a climate change denier per say, and I believe that pollution needs to be dealt with because we have people dying from air quality issues during the warmer months.  I have couple of issues that maybe someone smarter than me can address about climate change.

1.  Recorded climate actuals have only be recorded accurately for what?  Last hundred years? two hundred years?(Please correct me if I'm wrong, since these are assumptions on my part)
2.  While humans have an impact, other factors are also impacting overall climate.(Sun Spot cycle, Gulf Stream, etc...)
3.  We have had what?  6 ice ages that we are able to find evidence for?  This tells me at least, that large climate fluctuations occur without any human intervention on a cyclic basis.

So my question is "Just how much of an impact does human activity have versus other natural cyclic events?"  Most likely not an easy question to answer.


Those are all excellent questions :)

Let's see if I can answer at least one:

We began keeping proper records in the late 19th Century.

This is a rather unusual weather station, its story is as interesting as what it has recorded for the past 114 years.

Question 3 ties indirectly into that. Yes, we've been able to "read" much longer timespans in ice cores and the rings of long lived trees, as well as draw information from other natural sources.

Thus, the evidence you mentioned for the ice ages.

As far as Question 2...

It is my opinion only that we will be better off learning more of how to solve the pollution problem. While we're concentrating on solving that, and we are already fairly good at it...we'll learn better ways of dealing with CO2.

Finally, as far as the degree to which humans alone -- wholly apart from non-controllable planetary or forever-unreachable solar system forces -- have influenced this phemonenon, I have no answer.
 
2014-05-12 03:56:49 PM
 
2014-05-12 03:57:32 PM
And here i was thinking it was the buffeting hum of an air conditioner system...
 
2014-05-12 03:57:35 PM

Witty_Retort: 3. I guess this is where it comes down for some people. Some want to just 'hope' that it is a cycle, so they won't have to take any sort of responsibility. I see a 100% increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 100 years along with a constant rise in temperature and I'm pretty convinced that it is happening and that man is the cause of it.


Yup. The thought that they might be in any way responsible for creating, due to their wasteful habits, an earth for their great-grandchildren as envisioned in the movie "A.I." scares the living sh*t out of them.

c2.staticflickr.com
 
2014-05-12 03:59:30 PM
So, ice sample and tree rings...

Tree rings would represent growth during a year, which would I guess, give you a general feel for what the approximate temperature would have been for a local region, but how accurate could that actually be?  ie...this width of ring means average temp was 31C?

I would assume ice samples would have similar issues?  And I would also think that the further we go back, the less accurate they would be due to contamination?  Even just natural contamination?  Also, I know that we have had cycles where ice caps have melted, so ice samples would obviously only be able to go back until that point?(No, idea how long ago that was, I'm figuring a few million years at least, so maybe a moot point)
 
2014-05-12 04:00:18 PM

netizencain: My father posts this on every FB thread about global warming.  Can one of you give me a rebuttal for him.  He watches Fox news, so keep it plain and simple.

[img.fark.net image 602x329]


Simply post seven or eight graphs that show the data more completely, and ask him why, if he's so sure of his opinion, he insists on only looking at a singular set of cherry picked data in very specific boundaries.  Anyone can take a set of data, show it in a very specific light, and give you the Escheresque optical illusion that says what you want it to say.

I can take a picture of a tomato can on the ground with a person standing 50 feet away and make it look like the can is 10 feet tall.  Move the camera a bit, and you actually get perspective on the issue.
 
2014-05-12 04:04:12 PM

LostInTO: Tree rings would represent growth during a year, which would I guess, give you a general feel for what the approximate temperature would have been for a local region, but how accurate could that actually be? ie...this width of ring means average temp was 31C?

I would assume ice samples would have similar issues? And I would also think that the further we go back, the less accurate they would be due to contamination? Even just natural contamination? Also, I know that we have had cycles where ice caps have melted, so ice samples would obviously only be able to go back until that point?(No, idea how long ago that was, I'm figuring a few million years at least, so maybe a moot point)


I love the idea that ignorant (and I mean that literally) head-scratchers think they can outsmart actual scientists in this actual field by saying "I don't understand this very well, but I'm pretty sure that my assumptions about it disprove your research."

And then we elect those people to Congress.
 
2014-05-12 04:04:48 PM

The Goddamn Batman: One in four Americans also believes the sun goes around the Earth.


I'd be more apt to believe that 1 in 4 Americans failed to read the question carefully.
I don't doubt that we have a large population of morons, though.
 
2014-05-12 04:06:36 PM

LostInTO: So, ice sample and tree rings...

Tree rings would represent growth during a year, which would I guess, give you a general feel for what the approximate temperature would have been for a local region, but how accurate could that actually be?  ie...this width of ring means average temp was 31C?

I would assume ice samples would have similar issues?  And I would also think that the further we go back, the less accurate they would be due to contamination?  Even just natural contamination?  Also, I know that we have had cycles where ice caps have melted, so ice samples would obviously only be able to go back until that point?(No, idea how long ago that was, I'm figuring a few million years at least, so maybe a moot point)


Are you just sort of assuming the scientists who devised these measurement methods did not consider this?

Do you also have a huge problem with carbon dating?
 
Displayed 50 of 224 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