FARK.com: (3780134) "U.S. polls indicate that most of the amateur climate change skeptics are Republicans." Sure -- people who think Ted Stevens is innocent will belive anything

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.

		"U.S. polls indicate that most of the amateur climate change skeptics are Republicans." Sure -- people who think Ted Stevens is innocent will belive anything ( boston.com)		688
		More: Obvious

• • •

3544 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Aug 2008 at 11:28 AM (9 years ago) | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

https://fark.com/go/3780134

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

688 Comments (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Newest | Show all

LouDobbsAwaaaay

2008-08-04 05:02:39 PM

grizzlyjohnson: I don't know. What does the statement "global warming is real" mean to you? That's what I'm reacting to. If they're not considered to the be the only or even most important driver, then what's all the ruckus about? It kinda comes with the territory. If human activity is considered insignificant then we're crying over spilt milk, aren't we? Are you telling me that, while this global warming thing is happening, it's really not an issue?

Dude, c'mon. Keep it together. You're the only person here who is willing to have a debate on this without going all snocone-troll on us.

But you just made three assumptions about this conversation that are totally unsupported. Stop with the strawmen already - this is actually fun to talk about for a change.

joegekko

2008-08-04 05:04:05 PM

snocone: Like God said, "Get your own dirt."

Translation- "You stink, and I'm too cool to tell you why."

Darconix

2008-08-04 05:04:13 PM

There's this great big ball of fire,
Way up there in the sky...
And it's run the show on temperature
Longer than you or I...

They took my precious science
And they used it for their lie...
Some numbnut called me Adolf Hitler
When I dared to question why...

Oh, I'm a knuckle-draggin 'Publican,
And that I won't deny...
I like to drive my big old Hummer
And vacation I tend to fly...

But I don't see the sky a'fallin
Just cause gas prices are so high...
I just wanna eat my damn hamburger
And enjoy my apple pie...

So while the world it may be warmin,
And you claim we're about to die
I'll just sit in my little kiddie pool
While the rest of you jerks fry...

/Senses next big country music hit.
//Copyright 2008 Darconix

grizzlyjohnson

2008-08-04 05:07:09 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: grizzlyjohnson: That does not mean that all of them think that all climate change is due to humans. That does not mean that all of them think the earth is doomed because of human caused warming.

True, but what it does mean is that nobody has been able to come up with a valid theory to oppose ACC. That alone isn't enough to prove ACC is correct (as you've pointed out), but what, if I may ask, is your position? Are you sitting on the fence in hopes that a theory comes along that can oppose ACC, or are you waiting for a 100% super-ultra-guarantee from the scientific community that could never possibly happen, or what?

My position is that it's probably a good idea to reduce pollution, emissions, waste, and evergy consumption because it's the right thing to do for the planet. I don't need some politician's boogie man jumping out at me to scare me into doing these things. That just pisses me off.

I think that 3 out of 4 scientists agree that humans are causing some of the climate change and that it may have adverse effects on the planet and it's completely irrelevant if we just do the right thing, take care of the earth, and execute about 4 billion unnecessary people who are going to fark the whole thing up for the rest of us because of greed.

Okay, that last thing is hyrperbole, but still, it's an issue. We can do all we can to pollute less but we can't compete with China and India if they don't decide to get on board. That argues for significant foreign aid to those countries to get them industrialized in a planet friendly way, if you ask me.

And we should get maps to everyone. Some US Americans don't have maps.

grizzlyjohnson

2008-08-04 05:10:48 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: grizzlyjohnson: I don't know. What does the statement "global warming is real" mean to you? That's what I'm reacting to. If they're not considered to the be the only or even most important driver, then what's all the ruckus about? It kinda comes with the territory. If human activity is considered insignificant then we're crying over spilt milk, aren't we? Are you telling me that, while this global warming thing is happening, it's really not an issue?

Dude, c'mon. Keep it together. You're the only person here who is willing to have a debate on this without going all snocone-troll on us.

But you just made three assumptions about this conversation that are totally unsupported. Stop with the strawmen already - this is actually fun to talk about for a change.

Okay, let's try it like this: could you point out why it's necessary for me to point out who said humans were the only cause of global warming? Don't chastise me with your inappropriate references to straw men if you want to have a productive debate. Stick to the point.

snocone

2008-08-04 05:11:33 PM

Oh, that's right, you're the farker that likes to have his head patted once in a while.

LouDobbsAwaaaay

2008-08-04 05:16:13 PM

grizzlyjohnson: My position is that it's probably a good idea to reduce pollution, emissions, waste, and evergy consumption because it's the right thing to do for the planet. I don't need some politician's boogie man jumping out at me to scare me into doing these things. That just pisses me off.

I agree, but that is more of a position on public policy, not the science itself. Unless by "some politician's boogie man", you are saying that ACC is untrue and is solely used as a political tool.

grizzlyjohnson: We can do all we can to pollute less but we can't compete with China and India if they don't decide to get on board. That argues for significant foreign aid to those countries to get them industrialized in a planet friendly way, if you ask me.

I also agree with this, but again, it's about policy, not science.

grizzlyjohnson: I think that 3 out of 4 scientists agree that humans are causing some of the climate change and that it may have adverse effects on the planet and it's completely irrelevant if we just do the right thing, take care of the earth, and execute about 4 billion unnecessary people who are going to fark the whole thing up for the rest of us because of greed.

So the truth of the matter is irrelevant?

Digital Communist

2008-08-04 05:16:48 PM

grizzlyjohnson: Digital Communist: The scientific record says that anthropogenic global warming happens.

No, it doesn't. This is the problem. It's not a matter of agreeing to disagree, it's a matter of you getting your facts straight.

Here, let me do it for you. This is a true statement:

Most scientists who have expressed an opinion on the subject agree that at least some of the climate change that has occured in recent history is due to human activity.

That does not mean that all of them think that all climate change is due to humans. That does not mean that all of them think the earth is doomed because of human caused warming. Those would be invalid conclusion based on what scientists have actually said. That would in fact be a sensationalist sweeping generalization of the sort employed by politicians and media to recruit people to their agendas.

Please provide links to actual science sources please.

For my part, here are links to the publishers of the two most respected journals in the natural sciences, Nature and Science (clever names, I know).
Nature (new window)
Science (new window)

These journals have the highest impact rating (new window) of their kind. If you don't trust their interpretation of science then you take issue with science as a we know it.

You can find similar info on I imagine every relevant intitutions website.

I wanted to also post direct links to papers on the subject but all the ones I found were membership only (if you want to biatch about science, this is where you should be looking...).

Please post links to science institutions questioning the validity of anthropogenic global warming.

Before you do it, FOX news is not a science institution.

Darconix

2008-08-04 05:18:09 PM

joegekko: There are so many reasons to study climate that go beyond anthropogenic climate change, I really have to wonder about the people who suggest its all a shell game for money.

A frightening number of people think any science that doesn't lead directly to some marketable product is a shell game for money.

I don't think that people who decide to go into "environmental science" programs are doing so for the money. But there's no reason to put up with the low wages (compared to other fields) unless you have a real interest in the environment and environmental issues. This causes a selection bias when you take the opinion of a climatologist, who is either a full-blown environmentalist or at least cares enough about environmental issues to make it their life's work, and then regurgitate that opinion as fact. There is nothing wrong with them presenting facts. When we get into the realm of opinion and interpretation, it's like asking an alcoholic to find a reason not to drink -- some eventually may, most won't.

LouDobbsAwaaaay

2008-08-04 05:19:05 PM

grizzlyjohnson: Okay, let's try it like this: could you point out why it's necessary for me to point out who said humans were the only cause of global warming?

Because when you deflect by arguing against a position that nobody is advocating, you aren't really participating - you just make it look like you are. It's called a "strawman fallacy".

grizzlyjohnson: Don't chastise me with your inappropriate references to straw men if you want to have a productive debate. Stick to the point.

I was sticking to the point. You were off on a tangent about claims that nobody was making. It was a perfectly appropriate reference to a straw man.

chimp_ninja

2008-08-04 05:19:30 PM

grizzlyjohnson: I think that 3 out of 4 scientists agree that humans are causing some of the climate change

Again, you're misinterpreting the cited article.

1) Counting people isn't useful. I personally have encountered a (Young-Earth) Creationist who worked in a biology lab. That's his opinion, but needless to say he wouldn't pass review by a scientific journal.

2) So we'll look at studies to get a broad view. Roughly 3/4 of the papers supported the concept that the recent climate change is real, significant, and caused by man. The rest were dealing with other topics, like the climate millions of years ago. Precisely zero published studies presented evidence against the consensus position.

Digital Communist

2008-08-04 05:19:30 PM

KiltedBastich: trappedspirit: Digital Communist: You realize that gravity is a theory right? So is flight and germ theory. No theory ever becomes a fact, a theory is as good as it gets.

There are no such thing as facts?

/writing that down
//as a...uh...theory?

Facts just are. "Objects in free fall accelerate at 9.8 m/s2 towards the center of the earth" is an observed fact, we call it "gravity". Newton's Physics and Einstein's Relativity were both theories explaining why things accelerate as specified are theories of gravity. The moment you attempt any explanation for those facts, any explanation whatsoever, what you have is a theory.

No theory is ever "proved" beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is only probable based on the preponderance of the evidence, and can be disproved if appropriate evidence that disconfirms it is found. The more evidence there is in support, the more difficult it is to disconfirm the theory. Any challenger must do a better job at explaining the observed evidence, and it is on this grounds that all the skeptics in this thread and all the others ultimately fail. They fail abjectly to offer a better explanation, and constantly shift the goalposts of their skepticism. You can always claim there isn't enough proof, because you can always hide in that little gap of uncertainty.

Everyone is skeptical of climate change. The scientists who advocate it are skeptical - that's inherent to the practive of science. The difference is, they use precisely defined boundaries to determine when to accept a scientific hypothesis as probably true, instead of beginning with the preconception that it's not true, and finding ways to attempt to show that.

I wonder, has anyone yet pointed out that even if anthropogenic climate change were not happening, we would still need climatologists doing more or less what they are doing, for more or less similar amounts of money? Climate happens, and affects all of us.

I see many people suggesting the climatologists are promoting climate change because there is money in it. This makes no sense to me; good or bad, stable or unstable, the climate is going to be there, and we will have to try and understand it. The money to study the climate will be spent, either way, because understanding our climate is important. There are so many reasons to study climate that go beyond anthropogenic climate change, I really have to wonder about the people who suggest its all a shell game for money.

Thankyou.

dugdug

2008-08-04 05:19:35 PM

The largest industry emerging from global warming/climate change is the carbon offset credit industry. It's up to 63 billion now.

Link

Come on people, get with the program--there's a lot of money to be made here.

Darconix

2008-08-04 05:23:08 PM

dugdug: The largest industry emerging from global warming/climate change is the carbon offset credit industry. It's up to 63 billion now.

Link

Come on people, get with the program--there's a lot of money to be made here.

More money than that will be lost when we force an unnecessary retooling of the entire economic infrastructure to eliminate fossil fuels in their entirety. I'm all for cleaner alternatives provided they make economic sense. I'm all for reducing (and hopefully eliminating) our dependence on Middle Eastern dictators to fuel our economic growth. Just don't think for a minute that $63 billion is significant compared to the untold trillions it would cost to do that.

chimp_ninja

2008-08-04 05:30:22 PM

The IPCC summary is in the center of the spectrum of claims:

As you can see, there's a dozen or so explicit factors taken into account, given both magnitude and uncertainty. The solar forcing is both small and beyond our control, barring catastrophic intervention (i.e. nuclear detonations, deliberate injection of massive quantities of sulfate aerosols into the upper atmosphere, etc.).

The largest and best-understood forcings (carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, SO_x/NO_x, etc.) could all be addressed by a transition away from fossil fuels. We'll still continue to see warming in the short run-- the key gases already up there have atmospheric retention times of at least decades. However, we could limit the magnitude and rate of the warming, which will lessen the economic and humanitarian blow that climate change will bring. You'd also see massive improvement in air quality, and improved geopolitical strength for the US.

That's the short version. Carbon dioxide is the toughest nut to crack for reasons I describe above-- it's a necessary product of combustion with little to no commercial value. (And past a certain level of capture, it will have negative value-- it's waste you need to dispose of without doing the airborne equivalent of dumping it in the city's stream.)

apocalysque

2008-08-04 05:30:39 PM

reelpirate: patrick767: These are mostly people who are extremely anti-intellectual and give no credit to expert opinion unless it happens to be a so-called expert who agrees with them. They think the UN, Europe, most scientists, and much of the rest of the world are libs and America haters.

ie. They're idiots.

This Arrrgggument goes both ways. See you havent been reading much. Dude who invented your religion is going before congress to explain his skewed numbers. Sucks being wrong.... ARG For all of you that don't know what I'm talking about, please do a little research.

look, hands down, al gore is a dbag. global warming is not a religion, it's a truth. it's a truth that i believed in long before al gore got behind it. can we once and for all disassociate critical thinking intellecutals with that monkey in a suit?

pendy575
You may want to check the holdings of Gores hedge fund.

just because he profits from it, does not make him wrong? i know it's probably a difficult concept to grasp.

correlation does not equal causality (is that how it goes?)

joegekko

2008-08-04 05:33:01 PM

Darconix: I don't think that people who decide to go into "environmental science" programs are doing so for the money. But there's no reason to put up with the low wages (compared to other fields) unless you have a real interest in the environment and environmental issues. This causes a selection bias when you take the opinion of a climatologist, who is either a full-blown environmentalist or at least cares enough about environmental issues to make it their life's work, and then regurgitate that opinion as fact. There is nothing wrong with them presenting facts. When we get into the realm of opinion and interpretation, it's like asking an alcoholic to find a reason not to drink -- some eventually may, most won't.

I have to take off, and I hate to drop this knowing that I won't be around to discuss it, but is part of your argument really that we should not pay attention to the opinion of an expert in a field simply because they are interested in their field of expertise?

Aren't most people interested in things that they are knowledgeable about?

I really don't know if that's what you are trying to say or not. Maybe the statement just needs to be refined, but as it sits it's kind of mind-boggling.

snocone

2008-08-04 05:37:32 PM

Darconix: dugdug: The largest industry emerging from global warming/climate change is the carbon offset credit industry. It's up to 63 billion now.

Link

Come on people, get with the program--there's a lot of money to be made here.

More money than that will be lost when we force an unnecessary retooling of the entire economic infrastructure to eliminate fossil fuels in their entirety. I'm all for cleaner alternatives provided they make economic sense. I'm all for reducing (and hopefully eliminating) our dependence on Middle Eastern dictators to fuel our economic growth. Just don't think for a minute that $63 billion is significant compared to the untold trillions it would cost to do that.

That $63B will be used to buy more "scientific" studies, rewrite recent faux-paus, and MAKE MORE MONEY.
It will turn into trillions, just watch.

So we can all watch the Great Evil, Carbon.
When you should be watching the heavy metal shiat from manufacturing batteries and mining dumped in your swimming pool.
Or the chlorites, chlorates and other truely evil shiat going up that smokestack. Or the biphenols, or the
Yea, just watch the carbon, watch the carbon, you are getting sleepy,,

LouDobbsAwaaaay

2008-08-04 05:39:09 PM

It's an appeal to a vast 9/11 Truther-like conspiracy on the part of all scientists and governments everywhere.

Loren

2008-08-04 05:39:48 PM

CruJones: Penn and Teller are skeptics.

I myself am not sure if it's man-made. I admit it's changing, but the climate tends to do that. What is it, 3% of all carbon emissions on earth are man-made?

This is one of the standard attempts to muddy the water put out by the deniers. The thing is, most carbon emissions are due to animal metabolism. That carbon goes right back into plants to produce the food that drives the metabolism.

A simple analogy: You have an Olympic pool. There are some big pumps driving the filter system. You can run them until the cows come home and you won't change the water level at all. Now take a measly garden hose, turn it on and throw it in the pool. The water level will rise.

Likewise, carbon emissions from the biosphere have no effect. It's only emissions from fossil sources that matter.

Nutsac_Jim: CruJones: I myself am not sure if it's man-made. I admit it's changing, but the climate tends to do that. What is it, 3% of all carbon emissions on earth are man-made?

Do you think the carbon was just invented by man? Invented out of nothing? Is there more carbon on the planet now than 20,000 years ago?

Man is digging it out from where it has been buried for millions of years and putting it in the atmosphere.

Note that this means that at some point in the past CO2 was higher. True--when the sun was a bit dimmer we had a higher CO2 level. Returning to the old CO2 levels would be catastrophic.

Nutsac_Jim: If only people weren't so against nuclear power that the US could have the same % of power generation as France.

Exactly. We can make a big dent in greenhouse emissions by requiring all new baseline powerplants to be zero-carbon. If we get rid of the red tape they are cheaper anyway. (Note that I am not saying to compromise safety. A simple requirement: Before construction begins the plans are submitted and approved. That's that, so long as the place follows the plans it's immune to bureaucrats, politicians and the courts. None of this 10 different delaying tactics bit.)

fernt: ramathorn83: This global climate change is really picking up- and people who deny it (like my father) are morans.

Common sense. Get some.

I read a few pages of one of his earlier books. I stopped when he tried to rebut a pollution report with mathematical hocus-pocus. Either he was deliberately lying or else he doesn't know enough to be discussing such issues.

Brockway: How does a CFC molecule get to the ozone layer when not even ground-produced ozone gets to the ozone layer?

A CFC molecule is very non-reactive. It's going to drift around unchanged until it gets high enough that it stops a sufficiently energetic photon to split it--and that's only likely up in the ozone layer.

An ozone molecule, however, is *VERY* reactive. It's going to react with something long before it ever reaches the ozone layer.

re-elect_jimmy_carter: pendy575: re-elect_jimmy_carter

Malaria is worse. Like cancer it never really goes away once you have it. My grandfather caught it in WWII as a forward observer in the Pacific...he plotted the landings behind enemy lines for those of you that don't know what a FO is.

This is an interesting read for those of you claiming that environmentalists always have good intentions. Discusses DDT.

Link (new window)

i knew a girl that caught malaria in asia...she seems ok still.

Yeah. With access to modern treatment it's no big deal. I caught it back in 1982. Three recurrences since. Get the drugs, get fixed. Malaria is only a killer to those without modern medicine.

In regards to the it's-natural-so-it's-ok position: Consider the extremes of what has happened to the Earth in the past from natural climate changes:

On the cold side we have a snowball. The entire Earth was frozen over. Obviously, not too much survived this. Be glad for the greenhouse effect, though, without it we would still be there. (Volcanoes still emit CO2 and nothing removes it in that state.)

On the warm side we have a period where the rocks are almost bare of fossils. That means most life died. Is that what we want??

LouDobbsAwaaaay

2008-08-04 05:45:21 PM

Loren: On the warm side we have a period where the rocks are almost bare of fossils. That means most life died.

Do you have a citation for this? Because that's a pretty wild claim to make.

confusionist

2008-08-04 05:48:11 PM

We should all move back into tents and ride horses anyway. They are much better for the environment. I mean look at these incoming hurricanes caused by global warming.

schrodinger

2008-08-04 05:51:07 PM

pendy575: Sgt. Pepper

Really? Millions of people...yes millions!!!! have died since the ban of DDT. This was agreen initiative when DDT was discovered to adversely affect bird eggs. Kneejerk response...ban it. The ban still stands. Millions of people in the develping world (Africa included) have died from malaria as a result. Who do we get to put on trial at the Hague?

Good ol' Junk Science dot com for the research.

"Since Ruckelshaus arbitrarily and capriciously banned DDT, an estimated 14,447,795,000 cases of malaria have caused immense suffering and poverty in the developing world.***"

Wow, 14 billion! That's over twice the world population. Seriously, we gotta remove the ban on DDT to solve the problem.

Oh wait...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#DDT_use_against_malaria (new window)

Most prior use of DDT was in agriculture, but the controlled use of DDT continues to this day for the purposes of public health. Current use for disease control requires only a small fraction of the amounts previously used in agriculture, and at these levels the pesticide is much less likely to cause environmental problems. Residual house spraying involves the treatment of all interior walls and ceilings with insecticide, and is particularly effective against mosquitoes, which favour indoor resting before or after feeding. Advocated as the mainstay of malaria eradication programmes in the late 1950s and 1960s, DDT remains a major component of control programmes in southern African states, though many countries have abandoned or curtailed their spraying activities. South Africa, Swaziland, Mozambique and Ecuador are examples of countries that have very successfully reduced malaria infestations with DDT...

In the period from 1934-1955 there were 1.5 million cases of malaria in Sri Lanka, resulting in 80,000 deaths. After the country invested in an extensive anti-mosquito program with DDT, there were only 17 cases reported in 1963. Thereafter the program was halted, and malaria in Sri Lanka rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969. Although the country resumed spraying with DDT, many of the local mosquitoes had acquired resistance to DDT in the interim, presumably because of the continued use of DDT for crop protection, so the program was not nearly as effective as it had been before. Switching to the more-expensive malathion in 1977 reduced the malaria infection rate to 3,000 by 2004. A recent study notes, "DDT and Malathion are no longer recommended since An. culicifacies and An. subpictus has been found resistant."

So in a nutshell, DDT hasn't been banned for malaria control, but the problem is that it is no longer effective on mosquitos if you accept the theory of natural selection. Which, fortunately, most republicans do not.

Darconix

2008-08-04 05:54:13 PM

joegekko: I have to take off, and I hate to drop this knowing that I won't be around to discuss it, but is part of your argument really that we should not pay attention to the opinion of an expert in a field simply because they are interested in their field of expertise?

Aren't most people interested in things that they are knowledgeable about?

I really don't know if that's what you are trying to say or not. Maybe the statement just needs to be refined, but as it sits it's kind of mind-boggling.

No, my point was that the opinion of an expert should be viewed through his own lens of prejudice. Just as a carpenter will find a solution involving a hammer and nails for every problem he encounters, an environmentalist will have a tendency to blame global warming for every observation he makes. I think it would be hard to argue that prospective members of the modern "environmental sciences" field are not over-represented by activists for vairous environmental causes, most notable AGW.

There are reasons that experts should be restricted to facts and facts only when dealing with issues of such far-reaching social implications and determining public policy. I don't think selection bias of climatologists should be dismissed out of hand when it is clear they may not be the most neutral of arbiters. That is not to say their opinions should be dismissed, nor should the opinions of PETA when they claim that "meat is murder," but the very real selection bias should be taken into account.

LouDobbsAwaaaay

2008-08-04 05:57:35 PM

Darconix: I don't think selection bias of climatologists should be dismissed out of hand when it is clear they may not be the most neutral of arbiters. That is not to say their opinions should be dismissed, nor should the opinions of PETA when they claim that "meat is murder," but the very real selection bias should be taken into account.

Are you implying that it isn't taken into account in the peer-review process?

Darconix

2008-08-04 06:00:17 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Are you implying that it isn't taken into account in the peer-review process?

The peer-review process of climatology: Two PETA activists arguing whether meat is, in fact, murder, or merely manslaughter.

snocone

2008-08-04 06:07:35 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Darconix: I don't think selection bias of climatologists should be dismissed out of hand when it is clear they may not be the most neutral of arbiters. That is not to say their opinions should be dismissed, nor should the opinions of PETA when they claim that "meat is murder," but the very real selection bias should be taken into account.

Are you implying that it isn't taken into account in the peer-review process?

Son, I know you did not like me when I told you Santa Claus was not real, but it was for your own good.
Now I must tell you that the "peer review" process that you hold most holy is no longer real. It has been purchased by the highest bidder.
It is a corrupt and evil power broker at this time. It's obituary is writ by it's own hand.

Morton_toes

2008-08-04 06:09:30 PM

Darconix: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Are you implying that it isn't taken into account in the peer-review process?

The peer-review process of climatology: Two PETA activists arguing whether meat is, in fact, murder, or merely ~~man~~moo-slaughter.

FTFY

I think those PETA folks need to stop anthropomorphizing animals.

Digital Communist

2008-08-04 06:11:30 PM

Darconix:
There are reasons that experts should be restricted to facts and facts only when dealing with issues of such far-reaching social implications and determining public policy. I don't think selection bias of climatologists should be dismissed out of hand when it is clear they may not be the most neutral of arbiters. That is not to say their opinions should be dismissed, nor should the opinions of PETA when they claim that "meat is murder," but the very real selection bias should be taken into account.

Darconix, please give us the name of an institution that you respect in the sciences. Your alma mater perhaps, what school did you attend?

I want to go there and link to their environmental studies department and what they say about the subject for your benefit.

LouDobbsAwaaaay

2008-08-04 06:12:07 PM

Darconix: The peer-review process of climatology: Two PETA activists arguing whether meat is, in fact, murder, or merely manslaughter.

You have no experience with the peer-review process in any way, shape, or form - do you?

chimp_ninja

2008-08-04 06:21:13 PM

snocone: It has been purchased by the highest bidder.

And we've come all the way down to "Science doesn't know anything! What has science ever done for us, anyway?"

maxheck

2008-08-04 06:22:41 PM

Darconix:

There are reasons that experts should be restricted to facts and facts only when dealing with issues of such far-reaching social implications and determining public policy

You do realize that public policy is being made regardless, right?

The ratio of tax breaks given fossil fuel companies vs. renewables and conservation efforts is a public policy.

The EPA refusing to develop regulations for CO2 despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that IT IS THEIR JOB TO DO SO is a policy.

Absurdly loose CAFE standards constitute a public policy.

The many well-documented instances of the administration editing / redacting or simply burying reports by it's own scientists is a de-facto public policy.

And so on. To say "we shouldn't make policy decisions based on something not 100% crystal clear" is absurd... We're already doing it, and all public policy is based on probabilities rather than absolute truths.

It was "policy" to ignore the warnings of the people in the best position to know that NOLA was in danger if a major storm hit. The "policy" was to ignore it because it would have cost billions to fix.

Then it became a tens-of-billions dollar problem because of the policy of "wait and see."

ACC is an even larger problem.

snocone

2008-08-04 06:24:15 PM

chimp_ninja: snocone: It has been purchased by the highest bidder.

And we've come all the way down to "Science doesn't know anything! What has science ever done for us, anyway?"

Didn't say that.
Just said the beliefs you seem to profess lack relevance and display a colossal misapplication of very little understanding.
Possibly due to a limited education, but proly just your posture.

Digital Communist

2008-08-04 06:24:34 PM

chimp_ninja: snocone: It has been purchased by the highest bidder.

And we've come all the way down to "Science doesn't know anything! What has science ever done for us, anyway?"

He's not so sure about gravity either. He thinks it may be a plot by jews to get people to drop spare change.
/Stolen from Bill Maher

snocone

2008-08-04 06:33:29 PM

Digital Communist: chimp_ninja: snocone: It has been purchased by the highest bidder.

And we've come all the way down to "Science doesn't know anything! What has science ever done for us, anyway?"

He's not so sure about gravity either. He thinks it may be a plot by jews to get people to drop spare change.
/Stolen from Bill Maher

Didn't say that. Are you anti-semetic?
Just meant time to get some learnin' and learn how to think for yourself.
Be critical. Be skeptical.
When bullsheit is obvious and you support any portion of it, you look stupid.
Authority sucks, is usually wrong and needs to be stopped!

dangelder

2008-08-04 06:54:37 PM

Conservatives are against change. That primarily means changing their minds about anything. You tell a conservative something, he'll stick to it for the rest of his life, like a dog I had that saw a lizard on a rock once and had to check for that lizard every single time for the rest of his life.

zefal

2008-08-04 07:00:10 PM

The increase in co2 is the result not the cause of global temperature increase.

Link (new window)

No doubt, the correlation between the temperature and CO₂ is nearly perfect. No doubt, the climate on the Earth in the 650,000 years before the industrial revolution can be described very accurately by a single function of time. But if two things, A and B, are correlated, does it imply a particular causal relationship?

....According to Gore, the concentration of carbon dioxide from the ice core records (see the picture above) was evolving according to its free will and does not require any explanation. The concentration could have been caused by oil companies owned by various mammoths. At any rate, Al Gore does not have to answer why the carbon dioxide concentration was changing in the first place. He does not have to answer because he is the savior.

....Actually, we have more than logical arguments of this kind. We know very well why the causal relation is the opposite one. Imagine that you have a small bottle with 385 milliliters of Coke. It originally contained 4 volumes of carbon dioxide: if you extract carbon dioxide from one bottle of Coke to empty bottles at normal conditions, you will fill four bottles. I had to learn these things when we discussed various thermodynamical issues with Brian Greene when he was writing his second excellent book. Now, imagine that the CO₂ has leaked a bit and there is only 1 volume of CO₂ left in the bottle.

Take this bottle to your car whose internal volume is 1 cube meter i.e. 1 million milliliters. The carbon dioxide from the Coke makes 385 ppm (parts per million) of the volume of your car - just like the ratio in the atmosphere.

Suddenly, you notice a strange correlation between the concentration and character of the bubbles in the bottle on one side, and the temperature in your car on the other side. You will have two possible interpretations. Either the leaking CO₂ in the Coke determines the temperature in your car because the Coke with more CO₂ is a bit darker for the Sun that is shining to your windows (or for the infrared rays reflected from the chairs), or the temperature in your car determines how the bubbles behave in the bottle. Which explanation do you choose? ;-)

I think that any sane person obviously chooses the temperature as the cause and the concentrations as a consequence. Everyone who has ever tried to open a bottle of lemonade during a hot day must know why. Hot liquids are not able to absorb gases so well. Warmer oceans are not able to absorb atmospheric gases either. Clearly, if the temperature goes up, less carbon dioxide and methane can be bound to the ocean waters, which is why their concentration in the atmosphere goes up: this process is known as outgassing.

....There are many contributions to the temperature variations we partially know - such as various periodic astronomical cycles or solar variation - and there are many others that we don't know well or we don't know at all - such as nonlinear chaotic effects in the formation of different kinds of clouds. But I think that even though we don't know some things for sure and in their entirety, we can still be pretty much sure that certain hypotheses are almost certainly incorrect. The hypothesis that the CO₂ concentration was primary and it determined the CH4 concentrations and the temperature is one of such extremely unlikely hypotheses.

And that's the memo. But let us add a cute and important point.

What does the 800-year lag mean

There exists a simpler way to show that the temperature was the cause and the carbon dioxide concentration was a consequence, not the other way around. If you look carefully at the graphs, you will see that the carbon dioxide concentrations lag behind the temperature by 800 years. There have been many papers that found and reported the lag. One of the newest and most accurate ones is this 2003 paper in Science by Caillon et al.

Using al gore's logic:

If I shoot Al Gore and he dies 8 days later. The coroner should conclude (using al's logic) that the bullet was there as a result of his death and not the cause.

/not that I'd ever shoot the Alster
//I found him amusing in the same (guilty) way you find a retard amusing
///extra slashies for your viewing pleasure

Thrag

2008-08-04 07:02:48 PM

pendy575: Don't forget DDT. Millions of people have died as a result of the little green initiative of banning DDT. I wonder if that would qualify as a war crime? Kill millions and be held responsible?

Good thing we killed millions of people with malaria though....just think of how much we saved Africa from over population

You are repeating lies debunked moments after their first publication years ago. DDT was never banned for anti-malarial use. Use of DDT for anti-malarial purposes did decline, but that was because mosquito populations were developing immunity to it, not because of those damn hippies.

Thrag

2008-08-04 07:12:13 PM

pendy575: You jjust dont get it do you? The EU has told these countries they won't trade with them if they use DDT.

On their crops. Not for anti-malarial use. Nations would not buy crops sprayed with DDT, not just crops from nations who used DDT for other purposes like keeping mosquito populations down.

In fact, widespread somewhat indiscriminate use of DDT was causing populations of mosquitoes to become resistant. Overuse of DDT for agricultural purposes was making DDT less useful to keep malaria rates down.

Zafler

2008-08-04 07:14:43 PM

zefal

Wow, good job posting an obfuscating piece o' shiat written by a non-climatologists. I applaud that level of stupid, you've almost reached the level of snocone.

You do realize that a natural warmning cycle, say due to orbital forcing, causes greenhouse gases to come out if solution in permafrost and numerous bodies of water right? That the effect is self reinforcing?

So much stupid.

snocone

2008-08-04 07:15:13 PM

zefal: The increase in co2 is the result not the cause of global temperature increase.

And keep that newsletter comming.

Zafler

2008-08-04 07:18:44 PM

Link (new window)

Here's what actual climatologists know from, you know, research. Complete with links to the studies involved.

snocone

2008-08-04 07:21:51 PM

Zafler: zefal

Wow, good job posting an obfuscating piece o' shiat written by a non-climatologists. I applaud that level of stupid, you've almost reached the level of snocone.

You do realize that a natural warmning cycle, say due to orbital forcing, causes greenhouse gases to come out if solution in permafrost and numerous bodies of water right? That the effect is self reinforcing?

So much stupid.

You know, this means no Xmas card for you?
Remember that self reinforcing phrase, it will be cute in a few years.

snocone

2008-08-04 07:26:01 PM

Zafler: Link (new window)

Here's what actual climatologists know from, you know, research. Complete with links to the studies involved.

From your "reliable"?? site;
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.
This is a political/economic issue. Not science.
They got a petard problem.
Another rehash, no science. Follow the money.

Thrag

2008-08-04 07:33:02 PM

snocone: This is a political/economic issue. Not science.
They got a petard problem.
Another rehash, no science. Follow the money.

So you first complain that they are presenting science and it is a political/economic issue, then you say they present no science. Do you always manage to utterly contradict yourself in such a short span of time?

You seem to have your won petard problem, and another problem that rhymes with it.

snocone

2008-08-04 07:38:31 PM

Thrag: snocone: This is a political/economic issue. Not science.
They got a petard problem.
Another rehash, no science. Follow the money.

So you first complain that they are presenting science and it is a political/economic issue, then you say they present no science. Do you always manage to utterly contradict yourself in such a short span of time?

You seem to have your won petard problem, and another problem that rhymes with it.

Didn't say that.
You know what usually comes next, right.

Read their own statement, I cannot improve on it.
Logical equation of their statement says they do not exist.

Zoultan

2008-08-04 07:40:15 PM

It's great work like this Op-Ed that keeps the Boston Globe rolling in profits.

Myrkabah02

2008-08-04 07:40:55 PM

snocone

This is a political/economic issue. Not science.
They got a petard problem.
Another rehash, no science. Follow the money.

Brockway

2008-08-04 07:41:14 PM

I don't know why it is so hard for you guys. I have revised the graph to include the June 2008 data (not available when I made the last graph). Guess what? The trendline is even more negative now.

And for those who just can't quite get a handle on what data is used to constitute both the graph and the trendline of data thereof, here is ALL the underlying data (hint: the "-999.0000" points not included (as you can see from the graph itself), only what you see below is included), copied directly from the URL given right on the graph.


2001  1    0.4077
2001  2    0.3366
2001  3    0.5962
2001  4    0.5133
2001  5    0.5454
2001  6    0.5120
2001  7    0.4921
2001  8    0.5330
2001  9    0.4442
2001 10    0.4329
2001 11    0.6627
2001 12    0.4448
2002  1    0.7060
2002  2    0.7538
2002  3    0.7435
2002  4    0.5101
2002  5    0.5098
2002  6    0.5373
2002  7    0.5290
2002  8    0.4782
2002  9    0.5080
2002 10    0.4421
2002 11    0.5560
2002 12    0.4135
2003  1    0.6417
2003  2    0.5264
2003  3    0.5079
2003  4    0.4762
2003  5    0.5188
2003  6    0.4969
2003  7    0.4853
2003  8    0.5500
2003  9    0.5694
2003 10    0.6884
2003 11    0.5171
2003 12    0.6999
2004  1    0.5593
2004  2    0.6811
2004  3    0.6324
2004  4    0.5614
2004  5    0.4152
2004  6    0.4246
2004  7    0.4296
2004  8    0.4493
2004  9    0.4832
2004 10    0.5509
2004 11    0.7237
2004 12    0.4930
2005  1    0.5986
2005  2    0.4427
2005  3    0.6648
2005  4    0.6757
2005  5    0.6092
2005  6    0.6441
2005  7    0.6173
2005  8    0.5509
2005  9    0.6382
2005 10    0.6142
2005 11    0.6597
2005 12    0.5376
2006  1    0.3663
2006  2    0.5387
2006  3    0.5231
2006  4    0.4466
2006  5    0.4978
2006  6    0.5807
2006  7    0.5519
2006  8    0.5505
2006  9    0.5712
2006 10    0.6040
2006 11    0.5590
2006 12    0.7244
2007  1    0.8418
2007  2    0.5945
2007  3    0.6055
2007  4    0.6802
2007  5    0.5010
2007  6    0.4899
2007  7    0.4654
2007  8    0.4718
2007  9    0.5247
2007 10    0.4965
2007 11    0.4595
2007 12    0.4192
2008  1    0.1977
2008  2    0.3700
2008  3    0.7176
2008  4    0.4438
2008  5    0.4374
2008  6    0.4732

/suck it haters

zefal

2008-08-04 08:22:32 PM

Zafler,

Orbital forcing caused the warming which caused the outgassing.

Disprove that as a possibility.

Displayed 50 of 688 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Newest | Show all

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

If you like these links, you'll love

The next best thing to UltraFark

learn more | sign up

Report

Advertise on Fark

learn more

Like Fark!

Follow @Fark On Twitter

Headlines of the Week
Fark NotNewsletter

Report

Fark.com

Top Commented

Top Commented ▼

Top Commented
Top Clicked
Top Voted
My Recent Commented
Recent Mentions

Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.