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

(Think Progress)   Congressman: Well, if humans are the cause of global warming, then how did dinosaurs go extinct? Checkmate   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 228
    More: Obvious, global warming, extinction of the dinosaurs, NCA, climate change denial  
•       •       •

2856 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jun 2014 at 6:54 PM (14 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-10 04:03:17 AM
hellinahandbasket.net
 
2014-06-10 05:06:17 AM

Gyrfalcon: Yes, but DO owls exist? I think there are a few people who think there might not be. And if the owls wear hats, that makes them even less likely to exist, especially if we put them in the box with the cat.


img.fark.net

Unavailable for comment.
 
2014-06-10 05:07:31 AM
If global warming is real, then why come it snow in January?
 
2014-06-10 06:44:24 AM

Gyrfalcon: yakmans_dad: spongeboob: And for us to say that it is a settled argument right now I think, again, is a foolish argument to make, because there are scientists on both sides of the issue that say that's it's not settled.

1) You might learn to fly as you leap off a building. It's possible. So, you're going to jump off a building, right? You obviously don't abandon prudence based upon fragments of a possibility in 99.99999999% of your life. Why do you do so regarding AGW?

2) The words "settled argument" are misleading. Science proceeds by evidence. Not argument.  For what issues do you think the evidence is lacking? What evidence do you pose against it? After all scientific skepticism isn't the philosophical skepticism of David Hume or Bishop Berkeley. Science depends upon evidence not the terrier like persistence of a lawyer shaking the last nickel from a sucker.

How did we get to the point in society...I mean society in general...that all it takes is ONE person on the "other side" of an issue for an issue not to be "settled?" I mean, that is acceptable in a court of law in a criminal case, where Beyond a Reasonable Doubt requires that everyone be on the same side of the issue to get a conviction...but science isn't a consensus issue where it only takes two people to hang a jury. Hell, even in a civil case, you only need Preponderance of Evidence, or 51% to win your case--and by that standard, AGW is a clear winner.

Who came up with this asinine idea that as long as someone else is willing to take a contrary opinion, the issue was still up for grabs? Because they need to be found and shot, immediately,


The problem is willful ignorance. Scientists have been waving the evidence in everyone's faces. The deniers have been closing their eyes, plugging their ears, chanting "Na na na na na na! We can't hear you!"
 
2014-06-10 07:54:39 AM
My favorite thing about this thread is the guy who thought that one glacier in the US and literally nowhere else is proof that global warming isn't man made.
 
2014-06-10 08:02:26 AM

stoli n coke: If global warming is real, then why come it snow in January?


Ladies and Gentlemen, THIS is the epitome of the Republican argument against climate change.  12 words and the discussion, as far as they're concerned, is over.
 
2014-06-10 08:04:06 AM

Pocket Ninja: I know you're being snarky, subby, but the sad truth is that when snark begins to obscure an important truth, it ceases to be funny and begins to be sad. You see, the truth is that global warming  did kill the dinosaurs, but it was a different kind of global warming than what is killing us. You see,  ourglobal warming is caused by burning fossil fuels, which are called fossil fuels because -- and if you didn't know this before, it may stun you, but I really want to help you understand this cycle --  the fuel actually comes from dinosaur fossils. That's right. The dinosaurs died millions of years ago, and their bones turned into carbon, and some of that carbon turned into diamonds and the rest turned into oil.

But dinosaurs were cold-blooded, you might say.  Why would burning their fossils make it hot?

That's a good question, and the answer is because of geological pressure. See, the dinosaurs' fossils went underground after they died. Sometimes they were buried in landslides and things, and sometimes they drowned and the lake dried up and filled with dirt. Irregardless, once their bones got buried, all that dirt on top of them compressed them and made them warmer (this was also caused by the fossils being closer to the magma, which I'll explain in the next paragraph). This is why it gets hot when you burn them.

Now, obviously, the dinosaurs didn't cause their global warming by burning fossil fuels. It would be stupid to even suggest that, because back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, there weren't any fossils yet. They hadn't died off! No, what happened to the dinosaurs had more to do with  geology than anything else. You see, what you have to understand is that the earth was younger back then, only a few thousand years old. And, like all young things (children, puppies, etc.), it wasn't completely stable. Its crust hadn't hardened all the way. Did you know the earth has a crust? It does -- it has a very thin surface of rocks and dirt and grass that we walk on, b ...


Quite a walk there
 
2014-06-10 08:13:31 AM

notto: TheOther:

/unless you thing those graphics perhaps over-dramatize the prevailing conditions in each case
//naw!

If you consider constructing a graph that can easily be used to identify data differences in a specific set of data as 'dramatization' then you may not understand the actual purpose of putting data in graphs.


That's not a graph; it's a graphic.  As science, strong contrast and close focus are necessary, even as an illustration.  This looks more like a polemic.  The inverse presentation by deniers would be to show a line of 100 degrees C with a 2 degree range shaded in very muted colors, minimalizing the differnce and scoffing at its significance.
 
2014-06-10 08:20:47 AM

TheOther:  The inverse presentation by deniers would be to show a line of 100 degrees C with a 2 degree range shaded in very muted colors, minimalizing the differnce and scoffing at its significance.


I agree that deniers would add content and unneeded context to the graphic that would misrepresent the actual differences in data the graphic is intended to convey.  Not sure what component of the NASA graph you would think is unnecessary. It only includes the scale needed and choses colors to clearly show the variation based on that scale which is the purpose of the graphic.  Quick to understand, easy to read.
 
2014-06-10 09:27:41 AM
Does no one remember the big hole in the ozone layer?  The whole CFC, big hair, too much hair spray is going to kill us thing?  That was man-made...
 
2014-06-10 09:35:28 AM

Pocket Ninja: I know you're being snarky, subby, but the sad truth is that when snark begins to obscure an important truth, it ceases to be funny and begins to be sad. You see, the truth is that global warming  did kill the dinosaurs, but it was a different kind of global warming than what is killing us. You see,  ourglobal warming is caused by burning fossil fuels, which are called fossil fuels because -- and if you didn't know this before, it may stun you, but I really want to help you understand this cycle --  the fuel actually comes from dinosaur fossils. That's right. The dinosaurs died millions of years ago, and their bones turned into carbon, and some of that carbon turned into diamonds and the rest turned into oil.

But dinosaurs were cold-blooded, you might say.  Why would burning their fossils make it hot?

That's a good question, and the answer is because of geological pressure. See, the dinosaurs' fossils went underground after they died. Sometimes they were buried in landslides and things, and sometimes they drowned and the lake dried up and filled with dirt. Irregardless, once their bones got buried, all that dirt on top of them compressed them and made them warmer (this was also caused by the fossils being closer to the magma, which I'll explain in the next paragraph). This is why it gets hot when you burn them.

Now, obviously, the dinosaurs didn't cause their global warming by burning fossil fuels. It would be stupid to even suggest that, because back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, there weren't any fossils yet. They hadn't died off! No, what happened to the dinosaurs had more to do with  geology than anything else. You see, what you have to understand is that the earth was younger back then, only a few thousand years old. And, like all young things (children, puppies, etc.), it wasn't completely stable. Its crust hadn't hardened all the way. Did you know the earth has a crust? It does -- it has a very thin surface of rocks and dirt and grass that we walk on, b ...


farm3.staticflickr.com
 
2014-06-10 09:43:08 AM
Well if human brains are the cause of speech then how are you talking? checkmate

/dnrtfa
 
2014-06-10 10:12:24 AM

spongeboob: SkinnyHead: A liberal at Think Progress doesn't understand how science works. News at 11

Do you really believe the crap you post or you some kind of troll performance art?


At this point projection is all he has left. You can't take that away from him.
 
Ab3
2014-06-10 10:22:40 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Real reason dinosaurs went extinct:
[www.blastr.com image 550x413]


Also wanted for questioning.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-10 10:24:12 AM

SeesWhatYouDidThere: Does no one remember the big hole in the ozone layer?  The whole CFC, big hair, too much hair spray is going to kill us thing?  That was man-made...


And, surprisingly, quite a few folks still consider that whole thing to be a big hoax. We still have a hole in the ozone layer. In fact, the largest it's ever been was just eight years ago. None of that matters, though, because big business figured out how to make money off it, so no more delaying tactics, misinformation, and denial are required.

That's the whole point of climate change denial, you realize - to buy enough time for corporations to figure out how to adjust their long-term strategies and minimize impact. If they can get enough folks to believe that it's a hoax, well, you'll keep on consuming enough to float their income while they slowly, quietly, work with government to mitigate the financial impact on them. Too much mitigation, too fast, and governments get more power at the expense of corporations. Too little mitigation, and governments destabilize as populations & economies suffer too much. So, if you can convince, say, a quarter of the population, well, that's enough to ensure reasonable profits even as you develop new services & products for embracing reality in the near future - hardier crops, better energy storage and delivery, better transportation, cheaper desalinization. You're well-situated to exploit the coming changes, the population's been exploited enough to prepare for the new reality, and most governments weather the change with little or no social upheaval.

Mass social manipulation is fun, isn't it?
 
2014-06-10 10:27:09 AM

SeesWhatYouDidThere: Does no one remember the big hole in the ozone layer?  The whole CFC, big hair, too much hair spray is going to kill us thing?  That was man-made...


Same with acid rain.
 
2014-06-10 11:51:40 AM

SeesWhatYouDidThere: Does no one remember the big hole in the ozone layer?  The whole CFC, big hair, too much hair spray is going to kill us thing?  That was man-made...


Yep... and quick action lead to us avoiding disaster.  It is a PERFECT comparison, by the way.... Scientists find an alarming phenomenon that had global implications and it becomes clear that said phenomenon is directly caused by man's actions.  Scientists then recommend that we take steps to reduce the negative influence....  everyone agrees.... and the threat is reduced quickly.

Why this became politicized and supressed....I mean, let's hem and haw for a little bit more until we're ROYALLY FARKED and have no option other than to sit back and enjoy a rather slow and excruciatingly painful environmental apocalypse.  If it weren't for the fact that we'd be completly porked, I would love to see the looks on the deniers faces when they finally realize that their asshatery caused us to not fix this mess in time.
 
2014-06-10 12:03:43 PM

MassD: SeesWhatYouDidThere: Does no one remember the big hole in the ozone layer?  The whole CFC, big hair, too much hair spray is going to kill us thing?  That was man-made...

Yep... and quick action lead to us avoiding disaster.  It is a PERFECT comparison, by the way.... Scientists find an alarming phenomenon that had global implications and it becomes clear that said phenomenon is directly caused by man's actions.  Scientists then recommend that we take steps to reduce the negative influence....  everyone agrees.... and the threat is reduced quickly.

Why this became politicized and supressed....I mean, let's hem and haw for a little bit more until we're ROYALLY FARKED and have no option other than to sit back and enjoy a rather slow and excruciatingly painful environmental apocalypse.  If it weren't for the fact that we'd be completly porked, I would love to see the looks on the deniers faces when they finally realize that their asshatery caused us to not fix this mess in time.


It's being "politicized and suppressed" because doing the right thing to reduce climate change would put Big Oil out of business. That's reason enough to sink as much capital and political muscle into denying that climate change is occurring.

And no, I have to laugh when anyone suggests that the petroleum industry is ready to switch over to some "green" infrastructure they've been "researching" for 30+ years. In other words, "greenwashing."

They make so much goddamn money keeping the status quo the way is. Why allow any threats to such a dependable cash cow?
 
2014-06-10 12:17:32 PM
I'll take a stab at guessing. Since it's dinosaurs, first place goes to Joe Barton. After that, it's

Lynn Westmoreland
Louie Ghomert
Michelle Bachmann
Todd Akin
Vicky Hartzler

*** checks article ***

Damn, six guesses and not even close. But given that it's just run of the mill climate change denialism, and not that very special brand of Stupid trotted out by the the Microcephaly Caucus, I suppose it could really have been any of them.
 
2014-06-10 12:20:55 PM

spongeboob: SkinnyHead: Derp

Do you really believe the crap you post or you some kind of troll performance art?


Does it matter? If you spend all your time pretending to be a moron on the internet just to rile people up, eventually it's no longer pretending
 
2014-06-10 12:24:55 PM

mrshowrules: spongeboob: Mantour: [i.imgur.com image 800x647]

Um aren't dinosaurs related to birds, birds have a cloaca so wouldn't have dinosaurs have had a cloaca?


How can it be sodomy to place a penis in a cloaca?


/

How can it not be sodomy?


Well, the city of Sodom didn't even exist back then, for one.

Though, being a fictional city it strictly speaking never existed, but you know what I mean.
 
2014-06-10 01:34:16 PM

MassD: SeesWhatYouDidThere: Does no one remember the big hole in the ozone layer?  The whole CFC, big hair, too much hair spray is going to kill us thing?  That was man-made...

Yep... and quick action lead to us avoiding disaster.  It is a PERFECT comparison, by the way.... Scientists find an alarming phenomenon that had global implications and it becomes clear that said phenomenon is directly caused by man's actions.  Scientists then recommend that we take steps to reduce the negative influence....   everyone agrees.... and the threat is reduced quickly.


Wait, you're taking about CFC depletion of the ozone layer?   That's not what happened at all.  The Ozone depletion problem was subject to the same denial tactics by the usual suspects on the far right, and the problem was dismissed by many as environmentalist doomcrying.

You can still see some of this if you dig up Rush Limbaugh's first book, where he claims that the ozone hole was caused by a volcanic eruption and then closed up (no and no).  He also started the long-held talking point that volcanic eruptions dump far more chlorine into the upper atmosphere than humans ever could---in fact, volcanic eruptions do emit chorine, but in a soluble form that is rained out of the lower atmosphere.  CFCs are dangerous precisely because they are unnaturally inert, and can reach the upper atmosphere to cause harm.
 
2014-06-10 02:50:37 PM

whidbey: because doing the right thing to reduce climate change would put Big Oil out of business.


Let me laugh harder
 
2014-06-10 03:18:41 PM

Damnhippyfreak: RedVentrue: FTA
"The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change is a massive global effort to compile and analyze climate research by scientists and experts around the world. It found that there is a 95 percent likelihood that human activities drove 74 percent of the observed global warming since 1950."

Bullshiat.

This number comes from Huber & Knutti 2012. The directly relevant bits from the paper are as follows:

Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% (±12%, 1σ) of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% (±12%) by unforced internal variability. Of the forced signal during that particular period, 102% (90-116%) is due to anthropogenic and 1% (−10 to 13%) due to natural forcing.

[img.fark.net image 850x602]
a, Time series of anthropogenic and natural forcings contributions to total simulated and observed global temperature change. The coloured shadings denote the 5-95% uncertainty range.  b-d, Contributions of individual forcing agents to the total decadal temperature change for three time periods. Error bars denote the 5-95%uncertainty range. The grey shading shows the estimated 5-95% range for internal variability based on the CMIP3 climate models. Observations are shown as dashed lines.


Give me a shout if you want to read the paper but can't get it yourself. I'll gladly put it up for you and even work through it with you if you want.


If that's the case it's a damn good thing we're here warming the planet. Otherwise the earth would look much like Europa. Thanks AGW! You're saving the Earth
 
2014-06-10 03:30:10 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Real reason dinosaurs went extinct:
[www.blastr.com image 550x413]


WRONG!
application.denofgeek.com
He killed them by not being as good at math as he should have been
 
2014-06-10 03:31:05 PM

LordOfThePings: Satanic_Hamster: Real reason dinosaurs went extinct:

It was because Adric never learned to type.

[31.media.tumblr.com image 313x176]


BLAST YOU! BLAST YOU TO HELL!
:)
 
2014-06-10 06:37:22 PM

RedVentrue: Damnhippyfreak: RedVentrue: FTA
"The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change is a massive global effort to compile and analyze climate research by scientists and experts around the world. It found that there is a 95 percent likelihood that human activities drove 74 percent of the observed global warming since 1950."

Bullshiat.

This number comes from Huber & Knutti 2012. The directly relevant bits from the paper are as follows:

Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% (±12%, 1σ) of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% (±12%) by unforced internal variability. Of the forced signal during that particular period, 102% (90-116%) is due to anthropogenic and 1% (−10 to 13%) due to natural forcing.

[img.fark.net image 850x602]
a, Time series of anthropogenic and natural forcings contributions to total simulated and observed global temperature change. The coloured shadings denote the 5-95% uncertainty range.  b-d, Contributions of individual forcing agents to the total decadal temperature change for three time periods. Error bars denote the 5-95%uncertainty range. The grey shading shows the estimated 5-95% range for internal variability based on the CMIP3 climate models. Observations are shown as dashed lines.


Give me a shout if you want to read the paper but can't get it yourself. I'll gladly put it up for you and even work through it with you if you want.

If that's the case it's a damn good thing we're here warming the planet. Otherwise the earth would look much like Europa. Thanks AGW! You're saving the Earth



Not quite. While the greenhouse effect is responsible for why the surface of the planet is warm enough to be inhabitable, the effect does not somehow stop at a certain point as we continue to put more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. What the bit you were previously incredulous about and are highlighting now is about warming since 1950, far above what is needed to get us away from Europa-like conditions.

You can think of it as too much of a good thing, if it helps.
 
2014-06-10 07:24:01 PM
 
Displayed 28 of 228 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